Recount

[DistrictDeacon]

So you aren't in favor of a recount?

Huh?

A recount is a way to gather evidence for a claim. Like if BKF ventured to the inner city and asked black people if they had jobs or not.

If you're just here to throw around nonsensical one liners, you should at least try to make them entertaining/funny/interesting.

 

[bobknightfan]

To be fair - its usually the person who makes a claim who should provide the evidence. Unless they are just going on #feelings.

I linked one article and jhmd later linked three more articles.....all showing urban cities where black male unemployment was close to or above 40%.

And as I mentioned in one of my posts, I thought that every time the subject of urban crime came up, one of the liberals' first talking points was how the high urban unemployment rates and lack of job opportunities for black males contributed heavily to the crime rate. Have I been mistaken about that all this time?

 

[RJKarl]

To be fair - its usually the person who makes a claim who should provide the evidence. Unless they are just going on #feelings.

I have Googled - JFK,LBJ, Nixon (68/72), Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, W and Obama - President-elect _______ talks about millions of illegal votes cast for President... none of them said anything like Trump did.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I linked one article and jhmd later linked three more articles.....all showing urban cities where black male unemployment was close to or above 40%.

And as I mentioned in one of my posts, I thought that every time the subject of urban crime came up, one of the liberals' first talking points was how the high urban unemployment rates and lack of job opportunities for black males contributed heavily to the crime rate. Have I been mistaken about that all this time?

Did you read the jhmd articles? I did. They focused on a very narrow range of ages. Hardly supports your initial claim.

 

[bobknightfan]

I'll do a bob, show me I'm wrong.

Show me a president-elect who accused the american electoral system of allowing millions of illegal votes to be cast.

A major reason no one else has disputed your totally BS assertion is they understand you are completely FOS and invented a basis number that has no validity. They understand you have become a preposterous joke of a poster.

I did show you a link to a list of the cities with the highest black unemployment. None reached anything like you asserted. anyone with a brain would understand that if no city reached even 25% black unemployment (on one or two were over 20%) that it would be basically statistically impossible for black adult male unemployment to reach 40%

I also showed you national black adult unemployment at 8.8%. To reach 40% in "many cities". many, many times that number of cities would have to have close to 0% black male unemployment.

As is also bob's new way, he added a range of 18-30 for the first time in post above.

bob, you complain erroneously about me not admitting I'm wrong. Why can't you admit you are wrong here?

You are at a point so low and so outrageous now that even Reff and 89 can't compare to your level of incompetence.

No you didn't, RJ....and I've pointed that out two or three times since you posted the link. That link gave the total unemployment for those cities, not the level of black male unemployment.

 

[RJKarl]

There was a list of BLACK unemployment in those cities AS I DESCRIBED ABOVE.

Read what I post before losing what little of your mind that you have left.

 

[bobknightfan]

There was a list of BLACK unemployment in those cities AS I DESCRIBED ABOVE.

Read what I post before losing what little of your mind that you have left.

Here is the link you posted:

http://247wallst.com/special-report...-the-highest-and-lowest-unemployment-rates/2/

There isn't one word about racial breakdown of the numbers in the entire article.

And furthermore, I don't know what criteria they used to pick those cities, but at a quick glance they all looked liked mid-size cities, rather than major urban cities. Didn't see any cities like St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc on the list.

 

[birdman]

I get that the recount on the whole is pretty dumb and wasteful, but this current argument, about who said what and link which articles about black unemployment on some other thread, is dumber.

 

[wakephan09]

Yes, you did. 1 out of 3. My mistake. (Never liked that "my bad" stuff.) RJ would never have put a qualifier in there.

Why not?

(Trying my hand at "gotcha" questions)

 

[bobknightfan]

Why not?

(Trying my hand at "gotcha" questions)

I never used the term "my bad" in my life. The word "bad" is an adjective and is supposed to be describing something. My bad what?...as opposed to "My mistake", which explains "my what". Never even heard anyone else using "my bad" until recently. I had always used "my mistake" and had only heard other people saying "my mistake". It's no big thing, I suppose, other than the two words "my bad" don't seem to make any sense to me. Where did this "my bad" thing come from and when did it start, anyway?

 

[Wrangor]

You know that Jill Stein requested the recount, right? ETA: For this reason, the "sore loser" narratives don't really make any sense. I don't see what the Clinton campaign has to gain by pretending like it isn't happening. Their response was very lukewarm, fwiw, and I'm not sure Clinton has even commented on it yet.

You really think Jill Stein cares about the recount? You are smarter than that, Strickland. This is coming at the behest of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In return, Stein is receiving a hefty dose of contributions to 'fund' the effort which will also coincidentally help Stein retire debt she has incurred during the campaign. Please tell me you don't really think that Stein is the engine moving the recount campaign.

 

[DeacMan]

Apparently the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania may have been missed. If that is true, the whole exercise may not be worth the effort. Does he even need Michigan and Wisconsin if he has PA in the bag?

 

[birdman]

A recount is a way to count again. "Count" means to "determine the number of" and "re" is a prefix that means "again."

Re-count. Re-count. Think it through slowly if it doesn't make sense at first.

A recount is not a means to gather evidence. A recount should be based on evidence. Statistical analysis showing that paper votes in cities skew more to Clinton and rural electronic votes skew toward Trump is not evidence. It's common sense, and this entire enterprise, which your candidate supports, is a colossal waste of time and money, not to mention a threat to the integrity of the process.

I assumed donkeys were poor losers, but I wouldn't have thought they would have stooped to this level. It's downright -- dare I say it -- Trumpian.

How is counting votes again to make sure the tallies were correct a threat to the integrity of the process?

Look, I totally accept the sore looser label here. I desperately don't want Trump to actually be the president and therefore think maybe a recount is worth the effort while at the same time knowing it is extremely unlikely to be successful. But lets not blow this out of proportion. Clinton isn't setting up a shadow cabinet and trying to move the capital to San Francisco; no one is trying to convince Obama to refuse to leave the Oval office in January. There is no threat to the integrity of the process. All counts are subject to counting error and counting things again won't threaten anybody or anything, it will just help establish count variability, and there is some extremely small chance that vote tampering will be uncovered... improbable, but possible.

 

[Demonwolverine]

So my options are live in Trump's America, or live in a crazy one where Hillary some how becomes president through a recount? I'm not sure which one would actually be worse at this point.

 

[birdman]

You serious Clark? The claim is being made that Russian hackers have somehow surreptitiously infiltrated our voting machines. How does that claim not undermine the integrity of the process?

Well, yes if Russians had done that, that would be a threat to the integrity of the process. So how can counting things again, to make sure the Russian didn't do that, threatening the integrity of the process.

 

[wakephan09]

I never used the term "my bad" in my life. The word "bad" is an adjective and is supposed to be describing something. My bad what?...as opposed to "My mistake", which explains "my what". Never even heard anyone else using "my bad" until recently. I had always used "my mistake" and had only heard other people saying "my mistake". It's no big thing, I suppose, other than the two words "my bad" don't seem to make any sense to me. Where did this "my bad" thing come from and when did it start, anyway?

Sometimes.

And to answer your question, it seems to have first appeared in print in the ​Gainesville Sun in 1985.

 

[DeacsPop]

To be honest, now that the election is over I see very little to check in daily for on The Tunnels. I have accepted the results and will hold my breath as Trump goes through his paces. Time will tell whether he will be a total embarrassment (60%) or a President who can and will make a positive difference. (40%)

With that said, is there anything better than BKF and RJ going blow for blow?

Sheer comedy and worth checking in for in itself. :willynilly:

 

[Strickland33]

You really think Jill Stein cares about the recount? You are smarter than that, Strickland. This is coming at the behest of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In return, Stein is receiving a hefty dose of contributions to 'fund' the effort which will also coincidentally help Stein retire debt she has incurred during the campaign. Please tell me you don't really think that Stein is the engine moving the recount campaign.

I actually disagree strongly with this post. It's a conspiracy theory with little basis in reality.


It's well documented that Clinton and Stein, not to mention their supporters, despise each other and the campaigns probably hate each other even more. I know a lot of Jill voters and they are all #neverHillary folk.

Furthermore, the DNC elites are still actively blaming the Green Party for the election results and still holds a grudge after the 2000 election that I doubt will go away anytime soon. I'm not sure Jill or the Greens have anything to gain by working with the Dems, and vice versa.

The motives behind the recount are unclear to me. It could be a matter of transparency or genuine concern. It could be Jill's attempt to build her brand, no matter how stupid the means. Who knows?

I just don't think that the Clinton campaign wanted this to happen in the slightest. Now that they are dragged into it, they kind of have to participate. The campaign's statement and Clinton's lack of comment supports this, IMO.

I have no idea why the Clinton's have been so lukewarm on this whole thing, but I don't think they wanted a recount and I don't think they want a recount.

 

[Strickland33]

You serious Clark? The claim is being made that Russian hackers have somehow surreptitiously infiltrated our voting machines. How does that claim not undermine the integrity of the process?

Don't any of y'all watch Scandal???? #rigged

 

[RChildress107]

The recount effort being led by Jill Stein is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. The chances of voter fraud, Russian hackers, or other forms of tampering accounting for the 20,000 vote gap in Wisconsin (not to mention the even larger gap in PA) are next to zero. I have no idea why the Clinton campaign has any formal involvement. She took the high road the entire campaign, why open yourself up to sore loser claims now.

That being said, auditing the national vote on a regular basis seems like a good idea. At the very least, it would put to rest right-wing claims of "millions" of illegal votes.