Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Nov 2016, 1:33 pm

The last time Democrats lost, they demanded recounts, here we go again. If I were a Democrat, I would worry a bit about this sore loser label being applied to my party. Recounts every time you lose followed by protests of "not my president" makes Dems look like cry babies. Part of it I can blame on the millennial generation that does not understand losing (participation trophies and not keeping score, etc) and the Dems DO have more than their share of such millennials but c'mon man, the older crowd is taking part in this too and it just aint pretty!

I am a Republican, I did not like losing to Obama (twice) but I did not protest, I did not complain I would move to Canada, I did not demand recounts, I accepted the loss and moved on waiting for the next time. (Hell, I'm not all that happy the Republican won this time around either. I am no fan of Trump but that's who was elected, that's who we now need to deal with.) This is getting a bit sad to be honest...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Nov 2016, 2:53 pm

Last time in 2000 it was so close in Florida it was clearly justified. So I don't think there should be some allegations of a trend. This time it is Jill Stein who started it, although Hillary is joining. There are some allegations of computer hacking but the circumstantial "evidence" I have seen that Hillary received lower vote totals in rural vs urban areas (well, duh) doesn't seem convincing to me.

But I don't see what the big deal is. The election was very close and Hillary got 2 million votes more than Trump. Yeah, Democrats are sore about it. They'll do the recounts and hopefully that will set minds at ease. I don't really see the big complaint here.

Frankly, the whole Comey fiasco was a much bigger issue and far more damaging than these recount things. Recounts don't change faith in elections. It appears that Comey's decision to reopen the investigation was engineered by anti-Clinton folks at the New York office of the FBI (Giuliani admits he knew about the Comey letter before it was made public) and given how close the race I think it is reasonable to conclude that Clinton likely lost the election due to that interference in the election. Democrats are keeping remarkably calm about that. Because what Comey did was clearly wrong, as evidenced by the fact that he was able to quickly conclude that there was nothing there.

But we will let that go and move on. As we will after the recounts don't change anything.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 28 Nov 2016, 7:13 pm

Looks like the really big outlier in the counts was California that went to Hilary, who got 61.62% over Trump's 31.96%. If you take out the California votes for both, then Trump wins the overall popular vote 58,236,237 to 56,525,042. So now the 2 million swing to the other side. Of course, Clinton won by an even bigger margin (86.7%) in DC, but the numbers are much smaller.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0

It is unfortunate that Clinton apparently approved of this last-minute tactic by Stein (who, like many "3rd party" candidates are disenchanted Democrats) to throw the election into the House, especially after Clinton's conciliation speech.

As far as Comey is concerned, his first Congressional appearance was just as appalling, listing out every gross misdeed by Clinton and her staff, and then passing the buck, after the "coincidental" visit of Bill with the Attorney General, as we know. The offers of immunity to her staff, their destructive actions, all point to serious issues that were sidestepped. Yes, the 2nd issue may have come from the NY office, but they were probably pissed off by the what Comey did at the previous Congressional hearing. As for why Comey supposedly caved in, then quickly danced away from it a few days later, was probably just his way of undermining (again) the NY agents. I think it is disingenuous to simply state that the agents were anti-Clinton as much as upset that their investigative work had been undermined and soft-pedaled by Comey. So it's no great wonder why Democrats are happy to keep silent about this whole affair.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 6:40 am

I can see why Democrats are mad at Comey but I also see why they want to be quiet at the same time. Honestly, I am not blaming them for this but they really want things that only favor them (who doesn't?) but in taking this position it only paints them more as cry babies.

The recount is silly and a waste of money and time.
The protests "not my President" and this being a second loss in a row (even though I get the reasons for wanting the Florida recount) really look worse than Democrats want to think. It's childish and puts them in a bad light, sore losers who stomp their feet and have a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

hey, if the show were on the other foot, maybe the Republicans would have done the exact same thing? But that didn't happen. When the Republicans lost, they dealt with it and moved on. Yes, the losses were substantial and did not warrant recounts but still, perception is reality isn't it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 8:10 am

"The three states that we chose including Michigan that only just now declared its winner. This was not a partisan choice, this was zooming in on the states that have the markings of being most vulnerable to hacking because they had thin margins. They went the opposite way of what was expected and they had some kind of voting system vulnerability." - Dr. Jill Stein on the Alan Colmes radio show.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/29/s ... would-win/

She's raised more money in the last week than she did for her two presidential runs (2012 and this year) combined. How did she do that? (Not-so-secret answer: Clintonistas are ponying up the cash)
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 8:15 am

GMTom wrote:The last time Democrats lost, they demanded recounts, here we go again. If I were a Democrat, I would worry a bit about this sore loser label being applied to my party. Recounts every time you lose followed by protests of "not my president" makes Dems look like cry babies. Part of it I can blame on the millennial generation that does not understand losing (participation trophies and not keeping score, etc) and the Dems DO have more than their share of such millennials but c'mon man, the older crowd is taking part in this too and it just aint pretty!

I am a Republican, I did not like losing to Obama (twice) but I did not protest, I did not complain I would move to Canada, I did not demand recounts, I accepted the loss and moved on waiting for the next time. (Hell, I'm not all that happy the Republican won this time around either. I am no fan of Trump but that's who was elected, that's who we now need to deal with.) This is getting a bit sad to be honest...


If people want to spend their money this way, let them spend their money. What's the problem? Do you complain when people blow their cash on a yacht? It's just a stupid, but whatever, it's a free country. And in this case it can help to show the legitimacy of the President Elect and the electoral process, which is not a bad thing. Can you try a different argument that doesn't sound so silly?
Last edited by geojanes on 29 Nov 2016, 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:05 am

Yeah, it's a bit hard to see why Jill Stein would be really interested in recounts unless the Clintons were really behind it. I wonder if she has even has standing since the recount could not possibly affect the result for her. As for the recounts, it's kind of like polling the jury after you lose a jury trial. You know it's almost certainly not going to change anything but maybe, just to make sure...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:25 am

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, it's a bit hard to see why Jill Stein would be really interested in recounts unless the Clintons were really behind it. I wonder if she has even has standing since the recount could not possibly affect the result for her. As for the recounts, it's kind of like polling the jury after you lose a jury trial. You know it's almost certainly not going to change anything but maybe, just to make sure...


What do you think of the lawyer that asks for a jury to be polled? Is there any denigration of them in your mind for an action like that?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:39 am

It's a waste of money, I don't care who's money it is, it's a waste. The time is wasted and this delays the inevitable. To simply claim, "hey it's their money, let them blow it any way they wish" is not an answer, not at all. This allows for anyone who wants to spend the money to delay anything and everything?

Accept defeat, because a state went different than you EXPECTED is a good reason?
I expected the Eagles to win last night, should I be allowed to spend money to have the game reviewed simply because the outcome didn't go as I wanted?


and of course the Clintons/Dems are behind this ploy by Jill Stein, so what if Stein picks up another 50,000 votes (as if...) it's a ploy for the Democrats only.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:52 am

Interesting idea...

How would the left feel if a Multi-Billionaire spent money on silly things when it could be used to help the masses? Isn't that where jealousy comes into it? The jealous people think that person cannot spend money the right way, and then they get their nose bent out of shape.

Now it is OK to spend money on what you want because it is your own money?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 10:47 am

GMTom wrote:To simply claim, "hey it's their money, let them blow it any way they wish" is not an answer, not at all.


It's the only answer that matters. Do you want me to tell you what you can and can't spend your money on? Do you want the government? I didn't think so.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 10:49 am

bbauska wrote:The jealous people think that person cannot spend money the right way,


You're taking a dig at Tom, right? He's the one that wants to regulate how people spend their money. He calls himself a republican, yet quotes communist ideology. It's confusing.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 11:15 am

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:The jealous people think that person cannot spend money the right way,


You're taking a dig at Tom, right? He's the one that wants to regulate how people spend their money. He calls himself a republican, yet quotes communist ideology. It's confusing.


Not trying to take a dig at anybody. I said jealous people. I agree that people should be allowed to spend the money on what they want, and the Government should have little to say in that regard.

Sooo, if the left wants to spend money tilting windmills of a recount, I am all for it!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm

not buying the logic.
People can be free to waste their money as they wish.
I can still think it's stupid.

But this is not the same, it's not "someone's" money, it's money from the public spent to attempt to derail the system, it's putting a delay on the inevitable as well, this is nothing more than sour grapes and an attempt to screw things over no matter what the cost. If the Democratic party decided to buy a fleet of Rolls Royces, they can do so! But I can complain it's a waste of "public" money even though it's a private organization that certainly CAN do so if they please and it doesn't attempt to throw a monkey wrench in the voting process. I have no problem recounting where such a recount might change the outcome (like Florida a few years back) but here it's nothing more than being a pain in the ass and nothing more.

Waste money ...go ahead
But I can complain, and this is not really "private" money in reality is it?
and any attempt to screw the system should be met with concern, this is really poor sportsmanship and sets a bad example!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 1:11 pm

GMTom wrote:People can be free to waste their money as they wish.
I can still think it's stupid.


As do I.

GMTom wrote:it's not "someone's" money, it's money from the public spent to attempt to derail the system,


Which is a legal action protected by law. And the public is always spending their money on stupid stuff. Did you know that people still spend large amounts of money on tobacco products, which are shown to kill them! At least in this case, the local gov't gets the money, and no one gets hurt.

Don't like it? Change the law that allows it. Until then, just call the people who donate to this effort morons. We apparently have no shortage of morons.