@Baldimo,
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:So it's either Trump's side or the side of justice? That's your take on this? I didn't see the need for a recount, plain and simple, I trust the counting system and haven't seen a reason to doubt it.
Well guess what-even the people who wrote and passed the election laws saw the need to back up the election system by writing in the need for a
mandatory recount if the margin of victory is 1% or less, or a requested recount if the requestor-candidate or merely a state voter-can come up with the money. Saying that we count the votes once, no recounts is contrary to our system. You have some strange ideas about how the system works, and they all seem to favor the Republican candidate.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:This is all meaning less unless there was a reason to suspect that votes were messed with.
You couldn't be more wrong. The recounts, in most places, are automatic without even a request if the margin of victory is 1% or less. That's the way the law was written, since the writers in their wisdom realized that when you involve people there is always room for corruption. Besides which, unless the recount is performed and there is a discrepancy, how do we know if the vote was rigged or not? You've got a nice Catch-22 going there, Baldimo-one vote is enough unless you can prove there was rigging, but we musn't recount the votes so we can see if there was rigging. And the sad part is, to people like you that makes sense.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:Not falsehoods, information you don't like. There is zero proof anything was done to the machines, it only resides in your and Jill Steins imaginations.
But plenty of proof that something could have been done to the machines, that video I posted proved that. And once again you invoke your favorite Catch 22, "We won't recount unless we have proof there wrongdoing, and you can't use a recount of the votes to show there was possibly wrongdoing".
Besides which, I have mentioned innumerable times that the lawmakers passed the law with the proviso that recounts in most places are automatic if the margin of victory is 1%or less, and are paid for by a candidate or even a state voter if the apparent victory margin is over 1%. Which is what Stein is doing. And you find a million things supposedly wrong with that, whereas if you really had conficence in the system you would simply say, "Go ahead, count the votes. Have fun, they won't show anything different". But you don't say that-why not?
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:So it's either Trump's side or the side of justice? That's your take on this?
My take is that the law provides, in most states, an automatic recount if the margin of victory is 1% or less, and a requested recount by a candidate or state voter if they are able to afford it. I see nothing wrong with this. That's the law, it is designed to try to get the person with the most actual votes credited with the win.
I've got a question, Baldimo. What if somebody pulls off a con that wrongly gives a candidate who actually lost OVER a 1% win. Say, a 4% or 5% win. If people followed your personal commandment of "Thou shalt not recount the votes until you have
already proven there was cheating before the recount begins, then how can we catch the cheater? Likely, we will not be able to. And as long the wrongfully elected leader is a Republican or conservative, you like that just fine, don't you?
