BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump Clinton cheated

[Ray From Cleveland]

DUH -- there are more votes this year, hello. Because there are more votes every year.

Suuuurrrrrreeeeee there are

Is that why Obamas vote total in 2012 was LESS than 2008?

Lame arguments are, well, lame

Are you just incapable of holding more than one number in that tiny little smoke-filled head at a time, is that it?

Just over 129 million voted in 2008. Over 131 million voted in 2012.
Guess which one of those numbers is higher. Dumbass.

O'bama got more votes in 2008 because turnout was higher. Yet there were over two million MORE votes cast in 2012.

You could have looked this up yourself in like 13 seconds.

Nice deflection.

Does anyone believe that Clinton was more popular than Obama, therefor getting more votes then he in 2008 OR 2012.

Good lord, use your little head for a moment

Apparently the concept of a greater number of voters in the country (every election) is way too complex for you.

Elections are not in any way "measures of popularity". They're an "either/or". For simple nonworking brains like yours it's sometimes useful to use a parable:

Suppose you were on a lonely road driving in the middle of the night and desperately hungry. You come upon a diner. They only have two things on the menu --- one is a can of Spaghetti-Os that's been sitting for a while. The other is ocelot shit soup with mealybugs and a warm glass of battery acid. If you order the Spaghetti-Os, that doesn't make it "popular".

Ponder that for a year or two. Maybe something will seep in.

So you think either:

A. The population of California grew by more than the difference, all eligible to vote, and voted in a wildly disproportionate share for Hillary. You realize that a big share of California's increase, year to year, are those not eligible to vote. Right?

Or

B. Hillary was so wildly more popular than Obama that she amassed more votes than him.

It is amazing that this happens in s State that allows undocumented aliens the right to a drivers licence.

Curious.

Not only allows for drivers licenses, but also participates in Motor Voting.

 

[Flash]

[Q

So you think either:

A. The population of California grew by more than the difference, all eligible to vote, and voted in a wildly disproportionate share for Hillary. You realize that a big share of California's increase, year to year, are those not eligible to vote. Right?

Or

B. Hillary was so wildly more popular than Obama that she amassed more votes than him.

It is amazing that this happens in s State that allows undocumented aliens the right to a drivers licence.

Curious.

You have to understand that Moon Bat. He doesn't think any illegals voted for Crooked Hillary and he doesn't think Jill Stein was financed by Crooked Hillary or her sugar daddy.

Stupidity like that is unbelievable, isn't it?

Of course we are talking about an idiot that thought Obama was going to be a good President and that Crooked Hillary was honest so go figure. He also believed the lies about Obamacare, the IRS, Benghazi and that Crooked Hillary had no classified documents at her home server or ran a money laundering scam foundation.

 

[Pogo]

[Q

So you think either:

A. The population of California grew by more than the difference, all eligible to vote, and voted in a wildly disproportionate share for Hillary. You realize that a big share of California's increase, year to year, are those not eligible to vote. Right?

Or

B. Hillary was so wildly more popular than Obama that she amassed more votes than him.

It is amazing that this happens in s State that allows undocumented aliens the right to a drivers licence.

Curious.

You have to understand that Moon Bat. He doesn't think any illegals voted for Crooked Hillary and he doesn't think Jill Stein was financed by Crooked Hillary or her sugar daddy.

I've got exactly the same amount of evidence to that effect as you do --------------- Zero.

Stupidity like that is unbelievable, isn't it?

Quite. Why don't you explain to us why you do it?

Of course we are talking about an idiot that thought Obama was going to be a good President and that Crooked Hillary was honest so go figure. He also believed the lies about Obamacare, the IRS, Benghazi and that Crooked Hillary had no classified documents at her home server or ran a money laundering scam foundation.

Links?
Looks like you owe me six. Give you a thousand bucks if you can even come up with one.

You won't get that either. You must be a mongoloid idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wonder how much these recounts are costing the taxpayers?

Um they aren't at all...

Oh really? Who told you that because guess what? The taxpayers in Michigan are going to be paying around 4 million dollars for this silly recount that accomplished nothing!

Michigan Recount Cost: How Much Will the Recount Cost Taxpayers?

Sump'm fishy here.

From the article:

>> [Michigan Attorney General] Schuette’s lawsuit alleges that the recount has no chance of changing the results and the recount is frivolous because Jill Stein waited three weeks to file it — too close to the deadline to get the results to the Electoral College. ..... He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline. <<
​

At no point does Schuette explain --- and perhaps is counting on the public not knowing --- that the Electoral College doesn't NEED to know the numbers. It doesn't even need to know the original vote tally. It isn't even necessary for Michigan (or any other state) to hold an Election Day at all.

Well, no Pogo that is not necessarily true.

The selection of electors and the rules and laws governing recounts reside within the state that the recount is being held in. I do not know the laws of Michigan concerning recount but I would doubt very much that there are no requirements to complete the recount by a certain time or that the recount does not effect the selection of electors.

The recount is immaterial to the federal government BUT it is the state government that is managing and ruling on the recount being frivolous or not.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

 

[frigidweirdo]

BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump

LOL so do we get to arrest the people who helped Hillary lose by breaking election laws

Optical ballot scanners in Michigan that malfunctioned on election night and may have counted votes twice were situated in heavily Democratic areas, meaning that any vote fraud in the state actually favored Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

This isn't fraud, it's machines malfunctioning.

And what happened to Trump's "millions"?

Yeppers, in PA the machine "calibration" was off so it switched votes to Hillary. Funny how it is always a malfunction when the democrats get caught.

Funny how it's only when this happens to Democrats that Republicans ever remember.

Funny how it always seems to be happening to democrats. If you had a report of it happening to Republicans I am quite sure you would be posting it. Me thinks the calibration error they were talking about means that the votes were being switched too soon so people actually saw it happening.

Seems. I like the word "seems", because it's all about perception, and to you, it always seems to happen to Democrats. Does it? Well, you're making this argument and you've not backed it up with anything, so, I'm going to say you're talking nonsense, just bring out things that "seem" a certain way to you. It's like someone in Indonesia saying the weather seems rather warm today, therefore it must be warm in Alaska.

 

[Freewill]

BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump

LOL so do we get to arrest the people who helped Hillary lose by breaking election laws

Optical ballot scanners in Michigan that malfunctioned on election night and may have counted votes twice were situated in heavily Democratic areas, meaning that any vote fraud in the state actually favored Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

This isn't fraud, it's machines malfunctioning.

And what happened to Trump's "millions"?

Yeppers, in PA the machine "calibration" was off so it switched votes to Hillary. Funny how it is always a malfunction when the democrats get caught.

Funny how it's only when this happens to Democrats that Republicans ever remember.

Funny how it always seems to be happening to democrats. If you had a report of it happening to Republicans I am quite sure you would be posting it. Me thinks the calibration error they were talking about means that the votes were being switched too soon so people actually saw it happening.

Seems. I like the word "seems", because it's all about perception, and to you, it always seems to happen to Democrats. Does it? Well, you're making this argument and you've not backed it up with anything, so, I'm going to say you're talking nonsense, just bring out things that "seem" a certain way to you. It's like someone in Indonesia saying the weather seems rather warm today, therefore it must be warm in Alaska.

Here is one good article:

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof

Try this one:

Articles: How Democrats Steal Elections

 

[frigidweirdo]

This isn't fraud, it's machines malfunctioning.

And what happened to Trump's "millions"?

Yeppers, in PA the machine "calibration" was off so it switched votes to Hillary. Funny how it is always a malfunction when the democrats get caught.

Funny how it's only when this happens to Democrats that Republicans ever remember.

Funny how it always seems to be happening to democrats. If you had a report of it happening to Republicans I am quite sure you would be posting it. Me thinks the calibration error they were talking about means that the votes were being switched too soon so people actually saw it happening.

Seems. I like the word "seems", because it's all about perception, and to you, it always seems to happen to Democrats. Does it? Well, you're making this argument and you've not backed it up with anything, so, I'm going to say you're talking nonsense, just bring out things that "seem" a certain way to you. It's like someone in Indonesia saying the weather seems rather warm today, therefore it must be warm in Alaska.

Here is one good article:

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof

Try this one:

Articles: How Democrats Steal Elections

I didn't say voter fraud wasn't real. Voter fraud happens, but not on the scale Trump is claiming.

Your first source has one dead woman voting 5 times. 20 applications for dead people turned down in Virginia, an investigation into harvesting but with no figures, Trump said millions, you have 25.

Colorado voter fraud revealed: Slew of ballots cast by the dead spark investigation

The website this comes from shows a few more cases, and yet not in any of these cases does it mention the world "Democrat".

Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

This one also says 18-20 (note that your source said 20, when what he was sourcing didn't say there were definitely 20, bad journalism), and clearly you're not going to be able to tell if the were Rep or Dem.

So you have a source which shows voter fraud, but doesn't state whether any of it is Democrat or Republican inclined fraud. So, you say "it seems all to be Democrats doing this" is bullshit, you don't know who is doing this fraud.

Your second source is claiming that Romney got 55% of the verifiable vote, without showing this to be the case, what a surprise, more bullshit backed up with nothing.

So, in two sources you've managed to prove 0 cases of Democrat fraud.

Well done.

 

[Bassman007]

Yeppers, in PA the machine "calibration" was off so it switched votes to Hillary. Funny how it is always a malfunction when the democrats get caught.

Funny how it's only when this happens to Democrats that Republicans ever remember.

Funny how it always seems to be happening to democrats. If you had a report of it happening to Republicans I am quite sure you would be posting it. Me thinks the calibration error they were talking about means that the votes were being switched too soon so people actually saw it happening.

Seems. I like the word "seems", because it's all about perception, and to you, it always seems to happen to Democrats. Does it? Well, you're making this argument and you've not backed it up with anything, so, I'm going to say you're talking nonsense, just bring out things that "seem" a certain way to you. It's like someone in Indonesia saying the weather seems rather warm today, therefore it must be warm in Alaska.

Here is one good article:

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof

Try this one:

Articles: How Democrats Steal Elections

I didn't say voter fraud wasn't real. Voter fraud happens, but not on the scale Trump is claiming.

Your first source has one dead woman voting 5 times. 20 applications for dead people turned down in Virginia, an investigation into harvesting but with no figures, Trump said millions, you have 25.

Colorado voter fraud revealed: Slew of ballots cast by the dead spark investigation

The website this comes from shows a few more cases, and yet not in any of these cases does it mention the world "Democrat".

Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

This one also says 18-20 (note that your source said 20, when what he was sourcing didn't say there were definitely 20, bad journalism), and clearly you're not going to be able to tell if the were Rep or Dem.

So you have a source which shows voter fraud, but doesn't state whether any of it is Democrat or Republican inclined fraud. So, you say "it seems all to be Democrats doing this" is bullshit, you don't know who is doing this fraud.

Your second source is claiming that Romney got 55% of the verifiable vote, without showing this to be the case, what a surprise, more bullshit backed up with nothing.

So, in two sources you've managed to prove 0 cases of Democrat fraud.

Well done.

Voter fraud is worse than Trump could imagine. They just STOPPED THE RECOUNT because they found tens of thousands of extra voted for Hillary, so many that no one wants to see them

 

[ChrisL]

Voter fraud isn't real until democrats lose elections.

 

[Pogo]

Um they aren't at all...

Oh really? Who told you that because guess what? The taxpayers in Michigan are going to be paying around 4 million dollars for this silly recount that accomplished nothing!

Michigan Recount Cost: How Much Will the Recount Cost Taxpayers?

Sump'm fishy here.

From the article:

>> [Michigan Attorney General] Schuette’s lawsuit alleges that the recount has no chance of changing the results and the recount is frivolous because Jill Stein waited three weeks to file it — too close to the deadline to get the results to the Electoral College. ..... He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline. <<
​

At no point does Schuette explain --- and perhaps is counting on the public not knowing --- that the Electoral College doesn't NEED to know the numbers. It doesn't even need to know the original vote tally. It isn't even necessary for Michigan (or any other state) to hold an Election Day at all.

Well, no Pogo that is not necessarily true.

The selection of electors and the rules and laws governing recounts reside within the state that the recount is being held in. I do not know the laws of Michigan concerning recount but I would doubt very much that there are no requirements to complete the recount by a certain time or that the recount does not effect the selection of electors.

The recount is immaterial to the federal government BUT it is the state government that is managing and ruling on the recount being frivolous or not.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

I respect your opinion but I don't see that it's in conflict with mine. My point was, and is, that whether the recount happens or reaches a conclusion or doesn't, there is no burden on the state (any state) to have a recount or an election at all. There may be a self-imposed burden but being self-imposed the state retains complete control of its own means to waive it, if it exists. The bottom line is that no recount, and no election, is Constitutionally required for the state to submit its electoral vote. Therefore the Attorney General's fear factor of not having such recount done by the time the EV is submitted is intentionally misleading on his part by what he omits --- which is what I just noted.

In other words even if Michigan's own state laws present such a restriction he wants to play the victim by purporting that the state has no control over it. And that's not true at all.

 

[Pogo]

Voter fraud isn't real until democrats lose elections.

The fact remains that there is no "fraud" in the fake headline that titles this thread.

Until y'all acknowledge that this line of demagoguery has no point.

 

[FA_Q2]

I will start with I do not really disagree with your point.

Oh really? Who told you that because guess what? The taxpayers in Michigan are going to be paying around 4 million dollars for this silly recount that accomplished nothing!

Michigan Recount Cost: How Much Will the Recount Cost Taxpayers?

Sump'm fishy here.

From the article:

>> [Michigan Attorney General] Schuette’s lawsuit alleges that the recount has no chance of changing the results and the recount is frivolous because Jill Stein waited three weeks to file it — too close to the deadline to get the results to the Electoral College. ..... He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline. <<
​

At no point does Schuette explain --- and perhaps is counting on the public not knowing --- that the Electoral College doesn't NEED to know the numbers. It doesn't even need to know the original vote tally. It isn't even necessary for Michigan (or any other state) to hold an Election Day at all.

Well, no Pogo that is not necessarily true.

The selection of electors and the rules and laws governing recounts reside within the state that the recount is being held in. I do not know the laws of Michigan concerning recount but I would doubt very much that there are no requirements to complete the recount by a certain time or that the recount does not effect the selection of electors.

The recount is immaterial to the federal government BUT it is the state government that is managing and ruling on the recount being frivolous or not.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

I respect your opinion but I don't see that it's in conflict with mine. My point was, and is, that whether the recount happens or reaches a conclusion or doesn't, there is no burden on the state (any state) to have a recount or an election at all. There may be a self-imposed burden but being self-imposed the state retains complete control of its own means to waive it, if it exists. The bottom line is that no recount, and no election, is Constitutionally required for the state to submit its electoral vote. Therefore the Attorney General's fear factor of not having such recount done by the time the EV is submitted is intentionally misleading on his part by what he omits --- which is what I just noted.

What do you mean by 'fear factor?' I did not see this as a fear so much as a point that a recount should be completed in time to change the seated electors or not at all. I do not see a reason to pursue a recount that does not have any impact on the election process and, indeed, believe that such could cause a lot of harm rather than good. It would surprise me if there were no legal requirements for the same as well.

In other words even if Michigan's own state laws present such a restriction he wants to play the victim by purporting that the state has no control over it. And that's not true at all.

Did he say such a thing? Where were they playing victim?

 

[Pogo]

I will start with I do not really disagree with your point.

Sump'm fishy here.

From the article:

>> [Michigan Attorney General] Schuette’s lawsuit alleges that the recount has no chance of changing the results and the recount is frivolous because Jill Stein waited three weeks to file it — too close to the deadline to get the results to the Electoral College. ..... He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline. <<
​

At no point does Schuette explain --- and perhaps is counting on the public not knowing --- that the Electoral College doesn't NEED to know the numbers. It doesn't even need to know the original vote tally. It isn't even necessary for Michigan (or any other state) to hold an Election Day at all.

Well, no Pogo that is not necessarily true.

The selection of electors and the rules and laws governing recounts reside within the state that the recount is being held in. I do not know the laws of Michigan concerning recount but I would doubt very much that there are no requirements to complete the recount by a certain time or that the recount does not effect the selection of electors.

The recount is immaterial to the federal government BUT it is the state government that is managing and ruling on the recount being frivolous or not.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

I respect your opinion but I don't see that it's in conflict with mine. My point was, and is, that whether the recount happens or reaches a conclusion or doesn't, there is no burden on the state (any state) to have a recount or an election at all. There may be a self-imposed burden but being self-imposed the state retains complete control of its own means to waive it, if it exists. The bottom line is that no recount, and no election, is Constitutionally required for the state to submit its electoral vote. Therefore the Attorney General's fear factor of not having such recount done by the time the EV is submitted is intentionally misleading on his part by what he omits --- which is what I just noted.

What do you mean by 'fear factor?' I did not see this as a fear so much as a point that a recount should be completed in time to change the seated electors or not at all. I do not see a reason to pursue a recount that does not have any impact on the election process and, indeed, believe that such could cause a lot of harm rather than good. It would surprise me if there were no legal requirements for the same as well.

In other words even if Michigan's own state laws present such a restriction he wants to play the victim by purporting that the state has no control over it. And that's not true at all.

Did he say such a thing? Where were they playing victim?

Both of those --- ''fear factor" and "playing victim" are right there in the nested quote, to wit:

"He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline."

---- he's giving the "December 13 Electoral College deadline" as his reasoning for an electronic recount. That's a false base of reasoning because the state's ability to transmit its Electrical Votes (hee hee) are not dependent on whether a recount is done or not.

 

[FA_Q2]

I will start with I do not really disagree with your point.

Well, no Pogo that is not necessarily true.

The selection of electors and the rules and laws governing recounts reside within the state that the recount is being held in. I do not know the laws of Michigan concerning recount but I would doubt very much that there are no requirements to complete the recount by a certain time or that the recount does not effect the selection of electors.

The recount is immaterial to the federal government BUT it is the state government that is managing and ruling on the recount being frivolous or not.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

I respect your opinion but I don't see that it's in conflict with mine. My point was, and is, that whether the recount happens or reaches a conclusion or doesn't, there is no burden on the state (any state) to have a recount or an election at all. There may be a self-imposed burden but being self-imposed the state retains complete control of its own means to waive it, if it exists. The bottom line is that no recount, and no election, is Constitutionally required for the state to submit its electoral vote. Therefore the Attorney General's fear factor of not having such recount done by the time the EV is submitted is intentionally misleading on his part by what he omits --- which is what I just noted.

What do you mean by 'fear factor?' I did not see this as a fear so much as a point that a recount should be completed in time to change the seated electors or not at all. I do not see a reason to pursue a recount that does not have any impact on the election process and, indeed, believe that such could cause a lot of harm rather than good. It would surprise me if there were no legal requirements for the same as well.

In other words even if Michigan's own state laws present such a restriction he wants to play the victim by purporting that the state has no control over it. And that's not true at all.

Did he say such a thing? Where were they playing victim?

Both of those --- ''fear factor" and "playing victim" are right there in the nested quote, to wit:

"He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline."

---- he's giving the "December 13 Electoral College deadline" as his reasoning for an electronic recount. That's a false base of reasoning because the state's ability to transmit its Electrical Votes (hee hee) are not dependent on whether a recount is done or not.

That is where I disagree. Again, state law covers recounts and you are assuming that the law surrounding recounts does not require it to be completed in time to reseat the electors. That is not playing victim either - it is stating a fact. Why hold a recount when the state cannot reseat the electors? What purpose does it serve?

 

[boedicca]

Why hiLIARy Lost:

 

[Pogo]

I will start with I do not really disagree with your point.

Yes, the recount is immaterial to the federal government, which is why I said the EC doesn't need it. That wording was intentional. It's up to Michigan to decide how they formulate their electors but there's no reason not having a recount done would force them to "forfeit". We did this same point in another thread about Wisconsin, where that idea of "forfeit" was floated in the toilet of the topic title -- we flushed it.

As for this topic its thrust is supposedly "voter fraud", and I find it astounding that eighteen people clicked "Winner" on it. If there's that many people walking around who can't tell the difference between fraud and technical malfunctions, perhaps we don't deserve to be voting at all without some kind of intelligence test.

I responded to this post because the chain of quotes and conversation was not about forfeiting anything or voter fraud. It was solely on the idea that the vote count is immaterial and a waste of time due to the process that cannot finish in time to be of significance to the process and the cost. In that context - the context of that particular thread of the conversation - your post was incorrect IMO.

I respect your opinion but I don't see that it's in conflict with mine. My point was, and is, that whether the recount happens or reaches a conclusion or doesn't, there is no burden on the state (any state) to have a recount or an election at all. There may be a self-imposed burden but being self-imposed the state retains complete control of its own means to waive it, if it exists. The bottom line is that no recount, and no election, is Constitutionally required for the state to submit its electoral vote. Therefore the Attorney General's fear factor of not having such recount done by the time the EV is submitted is intentionally misleading on his part by what he omits --- which is what I just noted.

What do you mean by 'fear factor?' I did not see this as a fear so much as a point that a recount should be completed in time to change the seated electors or not at all. I do not see a reason to pursue a recount that does not have any impact on the election process and, indeed, believe that such could cause a lot of harm rather than good. It would surprise me if there were no legal requirements for the same as well.

In other words even if Michigan's own state laws present such a restriction he wants to play the victim by purporting that the state has no control over it. And that's not true at all.

Did he say such a thing? Where were they playing victim?

Both of those --- ''fear factor" and "playing victim" are right there in the nested quote, to wit:

"He also stated that the recount should be done electronically and not by hand, since a recount done by hand would have no chance of being completed before the December 13 Electoral College deadline."

---- he's giving the "December 13 Electoral College deadline" as his reasoning for an electronic recount. That's a false base of reasoning because the state's ability to transmit its Electrical Votes (hee hee) are not dependent on whether a recount is done or not.

That is where I disagree. Again, state law covers recounts and you are assuming that the law surrounding recounts does not require it to be completed in time to reseat the electors. That is not playing victim either - it is stating a fact. Why hold a recount when the state cannot reseat the electors? What purpose does it serve?

Again IF the state laws so require (neither of us know but working under the assumption of the positive), THEN the state also has control over whether to adjust that structure as needed. It's not like the state is bound into something it can't control; it sets its own rules on this, and it can just as well reset them.

 

[boedicca]

And why Trump Won. Most people like this better than the person in post #375 and think Slate is DUMB.

 

[gipper]

BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump

LOL so do we get to arrest the people who helped Hillary lose by breaking election laws

Optical ballot scanners in Michigan that malfunctioned on election night and may have counted votes twice were situated in heavily Democratic areas, meaning that any vote fraud in the state actually favored Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Clearly the Ds cheated in Detroit...but how come we don't see reports of this on the Lib MSM....yeah right.

Good column on the D cheating....




Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 time
This is some next-level poetic justice: A Michigan recount backed by Jill Stein and the Democrats, and intended to delegitimize Trump’s astonishing victory on November 8, has actually exposed widespread fraud in precincts which voted heavily for Clinton.

Hillary even sucks at cheating. Via the Detroit News:

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

In other words: In Democratic Detroit, each vote was counted 6 times!

Just imagine the landslide popular vote victory Trump would have enjoyed if the Democrats played fair on Election Day.

 

[Pogo]

BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump

LOL so do we get to arrest the people who helped Hillary lose by breaking election laws

Optical ballot scanners in Michigan that malfunctioned on election night and may have counted votes twice were situated in heavily Democratic areas, meaning that any vote fraud in the state actually favored Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Clearly the Ds cheated in Detroit...but how come we don't see reports of this on the Lib MSM....yeah right.

Good column on the D cheating....




Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 time
This is some next-level poetic justice: A Michigan recount backed by Jill Stein and the Democrats, and intended to delegitimize Trump’s astonishing victory on November 8, has actually exposed widespread fraud in precincts which voted heavily for Clinton.

Hillary even sucks at cheating. Via the Detroit News:

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

In other words: In Democratic Detroit, each vote was counted 6 times!

Just imagine the landslide popular vote victory Trump would have enjoyed if the Democrats played fair on Election Day.

Y'all can keep trying to rewrite this story all week but nobody's buying. This is the same story that's been cited over and over and over and it doesn't demonstrate anything that can be called "fraud". This is a case of ten-year-old scanners that occasionally jammed and the jammed scans may or may not have tripped the counter, which then required human intervention to reset. As a result the total of all votes and the total votes cast did not match in these places, usually off by literally one or two votes. And no one knows which way they were off, plus or minus, and no one knows who the votes involved were for.

That is in no way how "fraud" works. Actual "fraud" is where somebody deliberately controls either extra votes for one candidate, or disappearing votes for another. Neither is the case here. And the key verb is "control" --- you cannot possibly have "accidental fraud".

Thus the only "fraud" is in your post itself i.e. that you're a dishonest lying hack. The question is, what exactly is the thinking of you intellectual knuckledraggers that you expect anyone is going to buy this fiction? Your publisher rejected you as your fiction wouldn't sell, so what gives you the impression that it could sell here? And the other question is --- why is it so important to y'all to make up this bullshit story especially when a simple read of the story shoots it down?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

BREAKING: Voter Fraud In Michigan Favored Clinton – NOT Trump

LOL so do we get to arrest the people who helped Hillary lose by breaking election laws

Optical ballot scanners in Michigan that malfunctioned on election night and may have counted votes twice were situated in heavily Democratic areas, meaning that any vote fraud in the state actually favored Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Clearly the Ds cheated in Detroit...but how come we don't see reports of this on the Lib MSM....yeah right.

Good column on the D cheating....




Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 time
This is some next-level poetic justice: A Michigan recount backed by Jill Stein and the Democrats, and intended to delegitimize Trump’s astonishing victory on November 8, has actually exposed widespread fraud in precincts which voted heavily for Clinton.

Hillary even sucks at cheating. Via the Detroit News:

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

In other words: In Democratic Detroit, each vote was counted 6 times!

Just imagine the landslide popular vote victory Trump would have enjoyed if the Democrats played fair on Election Day.

Y'all can keep trying to rewrite this story all week but nobody's buying. This is the same story that's been cited over and over and over and it doesn't demonstrate anything that can be called "fraud". This is a case of ten-year-old scanners that occasionally jammed and the jammed scans may or may not have tripped the counter, which then required human intervention to reset. As a result the total of all votes and the total votes cast did not match in these places, usually off by literally one or two votes. And no one knows which way they were off, plus or minus, and no one knows who the votes involved were for.

That is in no way how "fraud" works. Actual "fraud" is where somebody deliberately controls either extra votes for one candidate, or disappearing votes for another. Neither is the case here. And the key verb is "control" --- you cannot possibly have "accidental fraud".

Thus the only "fraud" is in your post itself i.e. that you're a dishonest lying hack. The question is, what exactly is the thinking of you intellectual knuckledraggers that you expect anyone is going to buy this fiction? Your publisher rejected you as your fiction wouldn't sell, so what gives you the impression that it could sell here? And the other question is --- why is it so important to y'all to make up this bullshit story especially when a simple read of the story shoots it down?

I read a couple of stories on it, and according to them, over 80 machines were malfunctioning on election night. I can't believe all 80 plus did so after the voting night started. They knew those machines didn't work correctly from the beginning.

That aside, if a machine is not acting properly, that machine should be shut down for the rest of the night, not allow it to keep counting votes inaccurately.