• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Recount

DeaconSig said:
The longer you live in Mississippi, the more simplistic you get.

But feel free to keep espousing horseshit about "the left wing."
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase then: 'the more liberal members of this board'. Is that more palatable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RJKarl said:
As opposed to the know-nothing President-Elect who wants make flag-burning a federal crime and thinks the POTUS cannot commit a conflict of interest.

Or as opposed to know-nothing steel workers in PA, OH, WI, MI who voted for a guy who put them out of jobs by buying inferior Chinese steel while promising to bring back their jobs.

Or as opposed to the know-nothing auto workers in PA, OH, WI MI who voted for a guy whose position was to let the US auto industry go BK, fire them and rehire fewer of them at lower wages with few or no benefits. They believed his BS that he supports them.
Click to expand...

There is no 'as opposed to'. That is your misconception. It is as though you think that you must counter balance idiocy by espousing the equal and opposite idiocy from the left. How about we just have reasonable discourse? Just because Moonz is trolling the boards with trump articles doesn't mean we need a left counter balance. We can simply call out idiocy when we see it and move on.

You own your opinions Rj. This isn't a scale you have to balance. Let trump be the fool. You don't have to join him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is pretty much an expectation that if you win the Presidency, that you and your family move into the WH as your primary residence for the term of office. The Trump decision is HIGHLY unorthodox. Is anyone surprised that it has generated speculation?
 
What would be strangely fitting is if they found evidence of the Clinton campaign bending or breaking the rules.
 
birdman said:
Sure, you don't need voter fraud to explain the election out come. I've laid out two possible explanations, one is more likely than the other, but the less likely one is easier to test before the inauguration, so why not.
Click to expand...

Only one of those explanations was plausible (it also happens to be likely). I'm all for routine audits of elections, but if you want to make sure Russians aren't hacking our voting systems don't call it a recount and don't pick the second closest swing state.
 
I would love to see a full audit in NC. Look for evidence of Russian hacking, voter suppression, voter fraud, etc. If liberals truly believe this is some non-partisan desire to ensure the integrity of our system then go to NC where GOP would get on board because of Mcrory's situation and call for a full, independent audit of the election from top to bottom.

This would suss out any actual issues without being likely to overturn a result (except maybe governor) and would hopefully put to bed some of the more ridiculous claims about our electoral system.
 
PhDeac said:
Which rules do you think Clinton violated?
Click to expand...

I don't even think you realize what you are doing anymore. I honestly feel bad for you PH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You brought up something you thought would be "strangely fitting." I asked you to elaborate. What type of Clinton campaign rule violations do you think could be sussed out by a recount?

I think you've gotten yourself worked up about this far more than any liberal has. Now you're daydreaming of Clinton corruption scandals that you can't even explain.
 
RChildress107 said:
Only one of those explanations was plausible (it also happens to be likely). I'm all for routine audits of elections, but if you want to make sure Russians aren't hacking our voting systems don't call it a recount and don't pick the second closest swing state.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can accept this. Don't call it a recount and implement a random sampling scheme to evalute the probabity of vote tampering. That is reasonable, except I would push for doing it in locations where the outco e of the vote tampering analysis could change the results of the election. If hacked voting machines switched 300k votes in California, it doesn't really matter, so focus on swing or places that had an unexpected outcome.
 
Yeah. Conduct an analysis and look for abnormalities that can be explained by voting machines or such and just investigate those precincts. If there's smoke at that point, then look for the fire.
 
PhDeac said:
You brought up something you thought would be "strangely fitting." I asked you to elaborate. What type of Clinton campaign rule violations do you think could be sussed out by a recount?

I think you've gotten yourself worked up about this far more than any liberal has. Now you're daydreaming of Clinton corruption scandals that you can't even explain.
Click to expand...

Haha. I give you an A for effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Junebug said:
Geez, man. All he was saying is that it would be ironic if the recount uncovered evidence of fraud by the campaign of a person who supported the recount. Calm down.
Click to expand...

So, fraud by the Stein campaign? Boosting her numbers from 0.9% to 1.1%? That would ironic.
 
In hindsight I wish Stein or other 3rd party candidates had used Trump's claims that the election was rigged to push for voting reforms that make our electoral system more transparent, secure, accessible, and conducive to third parties.
 
Junebug said:
Stein called for it. Clinton is supporting it.
Click to expand...

even the idiot elect, err, i mean president elect said that there were millions of illegals voting and changing the results of the general elections numbers. if the only fraud / illicit behavior is done by Clinton we should get to the bottom of the issue. MILLIONS of illegal ballots is troublesome...don't you think? :eek:
 
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/.../94598740/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Wisconsin: Recounts cost $1mil
Stein: Here's $1mil
Wisconsin: Hmm.. recounts cost $3.5mil


Seems to me a candidate shouldn't need to foot the entire bill, $1mil is earnest money, and a state should be on the hook for a portion of it (at least as a refund if discrepancies found) as incentive to make sure their elections are clean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top