Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@Blickers,

Quote:

If Trump feels that Hillary's people stole states, or if some third party candidate who might consider Trump a better second choice than Hillary to himself feels that way and wants to file for a recount, go ahead. Nothing was stopping them. In fact, in many states it does not require a candidate on the ballot to file, any citizen can file for a recount. If Trump or his supporters were satisfied that Hillary didn't pull anything in the states she won-they were screaming like stuck pigs before the election that she probably would-whose fault is that?

This whole statement is pointless because it was a third party candidate, who got last place, that is questioning the vote count in limited states that were won by Trump, she doesn't question any others. She has now dropped the request for the third state recount with an excuse. She's got the money, I wonder how long until, if she does, returns it.

Quote:

Who are you to disparage someone the right to a recount in an election?

Who am I to disparage? Well, I'm not disparaging anyone, I'm questioning their motivation and as an American citizen who has served their country, I have ever right to question whom ever I want about their motivation for questioning our election system. Do you question my right to question them?

Quote:

If you are confident the votes are legit, then you have nothing to worry about. You say asking for a recount smells fishy?

I'm confident in the system in only as far as the left allows us to protect that system. Do I think 100% of the votes cast are legit? No, not 100%, but I do think a vast majority of them are legit. Do I think a vote count is going to detect the fraud? No I don't, we have no way to ensure that everyone who votes is a legal voter. Until we better protect our election system, I can't give a 100% vote of confidence.

Quote:

I think that someone bashing someone for asking for a recount smells like a mackerel olfactory.

I wasn't bashing them, I question their motives. To a PC person like you though I can see how you fail to see the difference.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Stop playing word games. Questioning somebody's motives in asking for a recount IS bashing them. Saying they are dishonest people because they asked for a recount is bashing them.

What you are doing is akin to someone who, when interviewing women for jobs traditionally held by men, starts off the interview by saying, "But why do you even want this job, the workplace if full of men, you would stick out, and people will wonder why you aren't home taking care of your kids?" Fact is, the job is open, the woman has the right to apply for it, and the interviewer is the one who is out of line, not the applicant. Just like Jill Stein is applying for recounts, she has the money, she has the right, cut the bullshit and count the ballots by hand.

I've already answered your "objection" to recounts being asked only for close states won by Trump, which is that if Trump's campaign or any minor party candidates want to ask for a recount, they were free to do so. In fact, in most states any voter was free to do so. Considering that Trump was hollering about how Hillary was supposedly going to steal this election, I'm wondering why Trump didn't ask for a recount in some states, frankly. It certainly does suggest that Trump's constant barrage of complaints about Hillary supposedly stealing the election during the campaign was a cover for his own campaign's plans.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Maybe Baldy is nervous about the recount because he had something to do with voting irregularities?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Yea. With his money, he can buy a lot of people's souls. Some, pretty cheap.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Stop playing word games. Questioning somebody's motives in asking for a recount IS bashing them. Saying they are dishonest people because they asked for a recount is bashing them.

So criticism of any type of bashing? No wonder you guys lost the election. It goes to the same level of criticism of Obama is the same as racism.

Quote:

What you are doing is akin to someone who, when interviewing women for jobs traditionally held by men, starts off the interview by saying, "But why do you even want this job, the workplace if full of men, you would stick out, and people will wonder why you aren't home taking care of your kids?" Fact is, the job is open, the woman has the right to apply for it, and the interviewer is the one who is out of line, not the applicant. Just like Jill Stein is applying for recounts, she has the money, she has the right, cut the bullshit and count the ballots by hand.

Are you comparing my criticism of Jill Stein and the recount as some sort of sexism? That's what this appears to say. Just another long line of more BS.

Quote:

I've already answered your "objection" to recounts being asked only for close states won by Trump, which is that if Trump's campaign or any minor party candidates want to ask for a recount, they were free to do so. In fact, in most states any voter was free to do so. Considering that Trump was hollering about how Hillary was supposedly going to steal this election, I'm wondering why Trump didn't ask for a recount in some states, frankly. It certainly does suggest that Trump's constant barrage of complaints about Hillary supposedly stealing the election during the campaign was a cover for his own campaign's plans.

Right back to the same crap. If the GOP won, they cheated but if the Dems won, you guys see the elections as fair. Keep it up and you won't win anything in 2018 either. The regular people in this country are tired of the "Crying Wolf" game you guys always play, they are finally seeing through the BS and have started to call your bluff. You really only have yourself to blame. You started that one post about Hillary being up 14 points a few weeks before the election, even you were fooled and now you want your revenge. I guess half of the US is sexist.

1 Reply

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s261x260/15390768_10208761288731005_2578512816577501958_n.jpg?oh=2e4d9e7272eab86a6bff48c4a67985dd&oe=58B1B444

0 Replies

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/15356486_1565660913444881_4953195930025316062_n.jpg?oh=0f0534a85c0fd715666457440b8a050c&oe=58B132B2

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

That is some stellar fact checking with that post.

1) Trump didn't call Taiwan, they called him and he took their call.

2) Worked a deal and kept jobs here in the US. You and Obama would have let those people loose their jobs.
No fact check as to jobs still going there.

3) He should support the pipeline, after all Obama's administration approved the pipeline in the first place.

This meme, just like a majority of meme's you post fails to have any real facts.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

So criticism of any type of bashing? No wonder you guys lost the election. It goes to the same level of criticism of Obama is the same as racism.

No, criticism of somebody using their rights to make sure a close election was conducted according to law is bashing. The law allows for recounts to ensure that democracy is carried out via the vote. But when somebody actually avails themselves of their right to recount, you fly off the handle. Too bad, people and candidates have their rights, no matter how much you huff and puff and try to deny them.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Are you comparing my criticism of Jill Stein and the recount as some sort of sexism?

Sexism is a denial of a person' rights. Your constant complaining about how Jill Stein is supposedly SO WRONG to exercise her right to a recount because you happen to like the result as it presently stands is exactly akin to a job interviewer who does not appreciate a female applying for a traditional male job. The interviewer doesn't have the honesty to say, "I don't think a woman belongs in this job so I'm not taking your application". So he says, "What do you want this job for? All the other people you'll be working with and for are men, you'll feel left out. And everyone will be wondering why you aren't home raising your kids".

That way the interviewer figures he can push off the applicant without having to worry about being accused of putting his own prejudices on the job. Which is just what you are doing. You want Trump to win those states, as the count stands now Trump does win them, and you don't have the honesty to say, "I don't care if Trump won those states honestly or not, I want him to win them regardless".

If you were sure that those states were won by Trump honestly, you wouldn't object to the recount. But, you are not sure. That's why you are raising such a stink about these recounts.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Everything you just said in this post is BS.

Quote:

No, criticism of somebody using their rights to make sure a close election was conducted according to law is bashing. The law allows for recounts to ensure that democracy is carried out via the vote. But when somebody actually avails themselves of their right to recount, you fly off the handle. Too bad, people and candidates have their rights, no matter how much you huff and puff and try to deny them.

Fly off the handle? You don't really understand what that means do you. I called the recount a sham and a fraud. That's flying off the handle? Get real.

Quote:

Sexism is a denial of a person' rights. Your constant complaining about how Jill Stein is supposedly SO WRONG to exercise her right to a recount because you happen to like the result as it presently stands is exactly akin to a job interviewer who does not appreciate a female applying for a traditional male job. The interviewer doesn't have the honesty to say, "I don't think a woman belongs in this job so I'm not taking your application". So he says, "What do you want this job for? All the other people you'll be working with and for are men, you'll feel left out. And everyone will be wondering why you aren't home raising your kids".

Blah, blah, blah, blah! That's pretty much what you just said there. Nothing of substance and no correlation to what the subject is. It's a cheap ploy to make disagreeing with the recount to look sexist.

Quote:

f you were sure that those states were won by Trump honestly, you wouldn't object to the recount. But, you are not sure. If you actually were sure, you would say, "Hey, go ahead and recount. What the heck, no harm in checking is there"?. But instead you scream and holler about how DARE Jill Stein ask for recounts in some states and not others, and you give a bunch of bullshit excuses as to why going back to check those ballots by hand is just the most outrageous thing you ever heard.

You do realize this is the same as saying. "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if we look in your email?"

Quote:

I have no idea of how the recounts will turn out, but I am sure that anyone who objects to a recount and disparages anyone who exercises their right to a recount is not sure his preferred candidate won honestly at all, and doesn't care if he did.

Look another one. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

You do realize this is the same as saying. "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if we look in your email?"

Really? You consider asking for a legal recount some sort of invasion of Trump's privacy now??? Question

Ballots are public records. That's why many states automatically hold a recount, at public expense, if the margin is 1% or less. Automatically. Here, Jill Stein is merely exercising her right to call for and pay for a recount in three states whose victory margin was slightly over 1% and you're on here bellyaching about how unfairly you're being treated. When all it is is Stein exercising her rights under the law to make sure the count was correct.

Why do conservatives get so upset when liberals exercise their rights to make sure elections were honest?

Meanwhile, we're still wondering why Trump, who shot his mouth off the last three weeks about how Hillary might steal the election, hasn't done squat about asking for recounts in states that he narrowly lost in. If he's so sure Hillary was up to no good, why did he not call for recounts in those states she won by small margins?

Could it be that for all his noise and bluster, Trump really doesn't want anyone to check out the votes in this election? It's certainly beginning to look that way.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Really? You consider asking for a legal recount some sort of invasion of Trump's privacy now??? Question

I'm just applying the same words to the same level of non-sense. If you have nothing it hide...

Quote:

you're on here bellyaching about how unfairly you're being treated.

I have made no such complaint. You seem to be the one complaining about being unfairly treated or that Jill Stein has. It's a scam and a fraud because she had no chance of winning those states and regardless of the recounts, she isn't going to win, hence the fraud and scam. It has already been reported that MI isn't doing a recount and has already certified their vote. What is Jill going to do with the money she collected for the MI recount? How about any unspent monies she will have left over? Scam and fraud.

Quote:

Why do conservatives get so upset when liberals exercise their rights to make sure elections were honest?

Mare sure elections were honest? If you cared about the sanctity of the vote, you would support voter ID laws, there is no better way to make sure people's votes count. One person verified, one vote! Do you even care if all the votes are honest votes? You don't, you just want votes counted, you don't care about honest elections.

Quote:

Meanwhile, we're still wondering why Trump, who shot his mouth off the last three weeks about how Hillary might steal the election, hasn't done squat about asking for recounts in states that he narrowly lost in. If he's so sure Hillary was up to no good, why did he not call for recounts in those states she won by small margins?

He won, why rub it in? Your ilk on the other hand are indeed sore loosers and can't accept reality. When you win elections they were fraud free, when you lose elections, then there had to be fraud involved. You can't win or lose with grace.

Quote:

Could it be that for all his noise and bluster, Trump really doesn't want anyone to check out the votes in this election? It's certainly beginning to look that way.

It only looks that way to your twisted world view of those you disagree with. As I've repeated, it's a difference between when you lose and when you win, you can't accept that not everyone thinks the way you do, so someone cheated. It really is poor form from the left, it's one of the reasons Hillary didn't win.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

Really? You consider asking for a legal recount some sort of invasion of Trump's privacy now [like asking to see Emails}??? Question

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

I'm just applying the same words to the same level of non-sense. If you have nothing it hide...

Having fun playing stupid? The ballots never belonged to Trump in the first place. You're supposed to be an adult, and you don't realize this? You plainly are incapable of thought, which is why your posts consist of nothing but the positions those on talk radio and other media outlets tell you to take.

The essence of democracy is the ballot, and those ballots are supposed to be counted. Posting idiotic messages attacking a candidate who DARES to seek a legal recount and has produced the money to pay for it illustrates you value obedience to your conservative thinkers over finding out the truth.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Mare sure elections were honest? If you cared about the sanctity of the vote, you would support voter ID laws, there is no better way to make sure people's votes count. One person verified, one vote! Do you even care if all the votes are honest votes? You don't, you just want votes counted, you don't care about honest elections.

Separate issue, but let me just say this: The issue there is not lack of identification, but lack of a photo ID and the right of a person to produce identification without a photo.

At any rate, it is clear why you oppose Jill Stein's recount or any attempt to get to the truth of what happened in those three states: You think that as long as there are states which allow the voter to use any form of identification that does not have a photo, the whole election is a sham anyway and it is perfectly all right for your candidate to win by fixed machines or any other subterfuge, of American or Russian origin, to get more votes in more states than his opponents. That is the position you have made clear.

And further, since you feel the entire election is a sham because the entire country does not adopt the photo ID laws you desire, you plan to post nonsense messages on this forum trying to make absurd points, such as Jill Stein is a fraud for standing up for her legal rights to a recount. And when confronted with the fact that Jill Stein has every legal right to do this, you plan to post addlepated messages that demand to know what Jill Stein plans to do with the money collected that isn't used in the recount-before the recounts are even completed.

Nice con you're working there, Baldimo. If Stein doesn't raise millions, you'll scream that it's too bad Stein, you didn't have the money. If she does raise the money, you scream you want to know RIGHT NOW where all the extra money that didn't get spent on the recount is going-even though nobody knows how much she is actually going to have to pay for the recount yet. This is the kind of thinking that right wing media pulls on their audience all the time, because they know their audience simply lacks critical thinking skills. Somebody with a functioning brain, when listening to this on the radio, might ask why the radio show host leaves no avenue for a candidate to have a legal recount that he would possibly consider legit. But the radio show host knows there are few if any listeners out there who will ask that, or they likely wouldn't be listening to him in the first place. The radio host knows he has people listening who believe in him more than they believe in democracy.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Hillary DIDwin. That is the problem. The voters rejected Trump by two and ahalf million votes yet the antidremocratic EC will proably go aginst the people's will and force Trump on us. That rankles. Recounts are legal and we can hope justiice will prevail.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Having fun playing stupid? The ballots never belonged to Trump in the first place. You're supposed to be an adult, and you don't realize this? You plainly are incapable of thought, which is why your posts consist of nothing but the positions those on talk radio and other media outlets tell you to take.

Sorry sunshine but I don't listen to the talk radio you think I do. In fact there are only 2 people I listen to on the radio with any consistency and they are both local radio hosts, I can't stand the syndicated shows. Sorry but that is a strike against you. In fact I was sad when they canceled the failed liberal radio channel out here. I used to listen to more liberal radio than anything else, Thom Hartman, Ed Shultz and Randi Rhodes.

Quote:

The essence of democracy is the ballot, and those ballots are supposed to be counted. Posting idiotic messages attacking a candidate who DARES to seek a legal recount and has produced the money to pay for it illustrates you value obedience to your conservative thinkers over finding out the truth.

Those ballots were counted, you and Jill and Hillary just didn't like that they didn't turn out for Hillary, so now you guys have to challenge the vote to prove some point about vote counts. Stein would have a good reason to recount the votes if she hadn't come in last place in every state she was on the ballot. Even Gary Johnson beat her, you don't see him crying and demanding a recount of a state he wasn't even in 2nd place in... That's the crux, she wasn't even close so what does recounting the ballots prove? From the news I have heard already, Trump has picked up even more votes in WI. So your fraud claim is a dream.

Quote:

Separate issue, but let me just say this: The issue there is not lack of identification, but lack of a photo ID and the right of a person to produce identification without a photo.

Security in the voting process is a multi front battle. You only want to see the security after the votes are cast, not prior to the votes being case. Voter ID has been an issue for over 10 years. If someone doesn't have an ID by now, then they aren't trying.

Quote:

At any rate, it is clear why you oppose Jill Stein's recount or any attempt to get to the truth of what happened in those three states:

We know what happened in those 3 states, but you can't accept it. The GOP won so someone cheated. It's plain and simple when you really step outside and view it from above. No one in those states has said they thought the election was rigged, it's only you crybabies who think something went wrong. The media lied to you and now you are pissed. It's pretty easy to see what is going on.

Quote:

And further, since you feel the entire election is a sham because the entire country does not adopt the photo ID laws you desire, you plan to post nonsense messages on this forum trying to make absurd points, such as Jill Stein is a fraud for standing up for her legal rights to a recount. And when confronted with the fact that Jill Stein has every legal right to do this, you plan to post addlepated messages that demand to know what Jill Stein plans to do with the money collected that isn't used in the recount-before the recounts are even completed.

How much BS can you really post?
MI isn't doing a recount so there is money she no longer needs, what is she going to do with it? Besides, I never said she was a fraud, I said the recount effort was a fraud. Do you really have that much of a problem reading what is written or do you always throwing your own meanings into my thoughts?

Quote:

Nice con you're working there, Baldimo. If Stein doesn't raise millions, you'll scream that it's too bad Stein, you didn't have the money. If she does raise the money, you scream you want to know RIGHT NOW where all the extra money that didn't get spent on the recount is going-even though nobody knows how much she is actually going to have to pay for the recount yet.

Not my con, it's Steins con. She is the one who got 1% of the vote or less in each state and thinks she has a reason to ask for a recount. Sure she has the right to ask, but common sense and past elections have only done recounts when the 2 leaders in the election have requested it. For a 3rd party candidate with 1% of the vote to request a recount doesn't serve a funtional purpose. You disagee with my assessment and that's fine, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You sure seem to take this personally for having no teeth in the game. Do you live in one of those states? I don't. CO went for Hillary and I voted for Gary. So just like Stein, I have no skin in the game.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Hillary DIDwin.

Not by any Constitutional measure.

Quote:

The voters rejected Trump by two and ahalf million votes yet the antidremocratic EC will proably go aginst the people's will and force Trump on us. That rankles.

I see you think we live in a democracy. Well we don't and the popular vote has NEVER counted when it came to electing our President. You should really face that fact and get with the program.

It only rankles because your candidate lost. Why are you being so unconstitutional?

Quote:

Recounts are legal and we can hope justiice will prevail.

What justice is that? The popular vote doesn't count for the election, it has always been that way. Now that you didn't win, you want to throw the system out that has worked for over 200 years?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I see you think we live in a democracy. Well we don't ...

What is missing in the USA, in your opinion:

a) a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections,
b) the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life,
c) protection of the human rights of all citizens,
d) a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Why do you think I think something is missing?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Why do you think I think something is missing?

Well, you wrote that you don't live in a democracy - I just wrote the four key elements of democracy.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

We live in a Representative Republic. If we lived in a democracy, we would be voting directly on everything at the federal level but we don't, in fact most states don't allow direct voting on state issues at all. That is done by the state legislators. We do vote which meets the basic criteria of a democracy but we do not live in a democracy as we do not have that much control over the laws and regulations which guide this republic.

1 Reply

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know