Jill Stein does NOT have the right to demand a recount for hillary Clinton

[Bassman007]

Michigan Supreme Court denies Jill Stein recount appeal

I said so last week, the morons here argued, now I am proven right.

Next

 

[skookerasbil]

Ahhh.......this story has been dead for a week. Nobody cares. Now they've moved on to this bogus Russian hack story..........also will be dead in a week. Just like the protests.........dead.

But hey.......if it floats the boats of the progressives, God bless!!

 

[Bassman007]

Ahhh.......this story has been dead for a week. Nobody cares. Now they've moved on to this bogus Russian hack story..........also will be dead in a week. Just like the protests.........dead.

But hey.......if it floats the boats of the progressives, God bless!!

The story is not dead until Clinton is dead herself as she can not give up, or she goes to prison

 

[Lewdog]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ahhh.......this story has been dead for a week. Nobody cares. Now they've moved on to this bogus Russian hack story..........also will be dead in a week. Just like the protests.........dead.

But hey.......if it floats the boats of the progressives, God bless!!

The story is not dead until Clinton is dead herself as she can not give up, or she goes to prison

Ya know..........always felt that way but don't care anymore. She will live the rest of her days in total misery........historic fAiL. She couldn't get a seat at the table of a beggers banquet.

 

[saveliberty]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

 

[Bassman007]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

There are no exceptions, if Trump pushes this and it goes to the Supreme Court all recounts will be ruled illegal, if only because there is NO evidence of tampering

 

[Bassman007]

Ahhh.......this story has been dead for a week. Nobody cares. Now they've moved on to this bogus Russian hack story..........also will be dead in a week. Just like the protests.........dead.

But hey.......if it floats the boats of the progressives, God bless!!

The story is not dead until Clinton is dead herself as she can not give up, or she goes to prison

Ya know..........always felt that way but don't care anymore. She will live the rest of her days in total misery........historic fAiL. She couldn't get a seat at the table of a beggers banquet.

Misery is spending the rest of your days in a chain link cell next to Islamic terrorist in Guantanamo Bay, which is where Hillary belongs

 

[Bassman007]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

That is corruption as Trump votes were not counted

 

[Lewdog]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

What does it matter? One state judge ruled it unconstitutional, another in a different state ruled it was.

 

[Bassman007]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

What does it matter? One state judge ruled it unconstitutional, another in a different state ruled it was.

This matters because all states are equal vote wise and the Supreme Court has to rule on this

 

[Lewdog]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

There are no exceptions, if Trump pushes this and it goes to the Supreme Court all recounts will be ruled illegal, if only because there is NO evidence of tampering

Link? Proof? One judge ruled it was unconstitutional, another ruled it was.

 

[saveliberty]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

What does it matter? One state judge ruled it unconstitutional, another in a different state ruled it was.

The laws are written differently idiot. Michigan's says you have to pay a certain amount of money for a recount AND have been legally injured in the election results in order to have the recount granted. Wisconsin's says, Any candidate at any election may petition for a recount. See WS 9.01(1)(a)1. The petitioner is required to state that “a mistake or fraud has been committed…or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election.” See WS 9.01(1)(2)(b).

The candidate filing a recount petition may choose to select only a few wards to be included in the recount. See WS 9.01(1)(a)3. If the recount is not a complete recount, the opposing candidate, or any voter or other interested party has the right to request a recount in any or all of the remaining wards. See WS 9.01(4).

Note they don't have to have proof fraud, just state it.

 

[Lewdog]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

Wow, like Michigan law cares what Wisconsin says. Speaking of Wisconsin, how many more votes has Trump picked up 84 or so. Gee, widespread corruption uncovered there.

What does it matter? One state judge ruled it unconstitutional, another in a different state ruled it was.

The laws are written differently idiot. Michigan's says you have to pay a certain amount of money for a recount AND have been legally injured in the election results in order to have the recount granted. Wisconsin's says, Any candidate at any election may petition for a recount. See WS 9.01(1)(a)1. The petitioner is required to state that “a mistake or fraud has been committed…or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election.” See WS 9.01(1)(2)(b).

The candidate filing a recount petition may choose to select only a few wards to be included in the recount. See WS 9.01(1)(a)3. If the recount is not a complete recount, the opposing candidate, or any voter or other interested party has the right to request a recount in any or all of the remaining wards. See WS 9.01(4).

Note they don't have to have proof fraud, just state it.

And you understand just winning the election isn't the only benefit that comes from it? Funding for future elections is based on how well a candidate does in previous elections.

 

[saveliberty]

And you understand just winning the election isn't the only benefit that comes from it? Funding for future elections is based on how well a candidate does in previous elections.

Deflection, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, constitutionality or the laws regarding recounts in Michigan or Wisconsin. If Stein progresses as she has in the last two election cycles, she would be about 80 million. <yawn>

 

[Bassman007]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

There are no exceptions, if Trump pushes this and it goes to the Supreme Court all recounts will be ruled illegal, if only because there is NO evidence of tampering

Link? Proof? One judge ruled it was unconstitutional, another ruled it was.

Why do you need a link? one link says one thing and the other says the opposite. So links prove nothing, though you are too dumb to understand this concept obviously. Now the truth, the same thing can not be constitutional in one state and unconstitutional a few feet away in another state, if you need a link to understand this you need better medication

LOL, link proof.........................Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Are links to CNN saying that Trump has no path to victory proof?

Slit your wrist and be over with it already

 

[Lewdog]

And you understand just winning the election isn't the only benefit that comes from it? Funding for future elections is based on how well a candidate does in previous elections.

Deflection, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, constitutionality or the laws regarding recounts in Michigan or Wisconsin. If Stein progresses as she has in the last two election cycles, she would be about 80 million. <yawn>

How is it a deflection? If votes weren't counted properly, or there was any kind of rigging, it could affect Stein's vote percentages which can affect the future funding for the Green Party. You can make up all the excuses you want.

The fact that you are still fighting an election recount that has actually brought to light problems that will help future elections... and you STILL fight it, tells me you don't care about fair elections, you only care about your candidate winning.

 

[Lewdog]

Except a judge in Wisconsin ruled it is legal.

There are no exceptions, if Trump pushes this and it goes to the Supreme Court all recounts will be ruled illegal, if only because there is NO evidence of tampering

Link? Proof? One judge ruled it was unconstitutional, another ruled it was.

Why do you need a link? one link says one thing and the other says the opposite. So links prove nothing, though you are too dumb to understand this concept obviously. Now the truth, the same thing can not be constitutional in one state and unconstitutional a few feet away in another state, if you need a link to understand this you need better medication

LOL, link proof.........................Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Are links to CNN saying that Trump has no path to victory proof?

Slit your wrist and be over with it already

Haha...so unless you can post something from Breitbart you got nothing? Got it. Glad to see you are as useless at tits on a boar.

 

[saveliberty]

How is it a deflection? If votes weren't counted properly, or there was any kind of rigging, it could affect Stein's vote percentages which can affect the future funding for the Green Party. You can make up all the excuses you want.

The fact that you are still fighting an election recount that has actually brought to light problems that will help future elections... and you STILL fight it, tells me you don't care about fair elections, you only care about your candidate winning.

It is deflection because your original position was Michigan's recount ending was unconstitutional. I proved you wrong. Stein's percentages stand at 1% or less. The recount has made no difference for her. Just another red herring from lewdog. The election was held legally, the recounts, where legal, are being completed. Yet there you are whining.

 

[Lewdog]

How is it a deflection? If votes weren't counted properly, or there was any kind of rigging, it could affect Stein's vote percentages which can affect the future funding for the Green Party. You can make up all the excuses you want.

The fact that you are still fighting an election recount that has actually brought to light problems that will help future elections... and you STILL fight it, tells me you don't care about fair elections, you only care about your candidate winning.

Steins percentages stand at 1% or less. The recount has made no difference for her. Just another red herring from lewdog. The election was held legally, the recounts, where legal, are being completed. Yet there you are whining.

Wait, so you're saying everything was done legally in Michigan?

Whining? Nope... said all along that the recounts are important for learning flaws for future elections. You don't care about that, fairness. Sad, I hope when Trump starts the next war you stand in the front line... wait, you won't will you? You'll be cowering in your basement, crying like a bitch and regretting your vote.