Anonymous wrote:Please recount and audit Nevada, New York, California and Colorado. One of them could flip red and I'd bet Hillary loses 2 to 3mm in fraudulent votes.

That is Donald Trump's prerogative to do.

i will never tire seeing jill stein - she is hot - she must've been ridiculously hot in her 20's and 30's.

Anonymous wrote:Please recount and audit Nevada, New York, California and Colorado. One of them could flip red and I'd bet Hillary loses 2 to 3mm in fraudulent votes.

Go ahead, as. Clinton supporter, I have no qualms about such recounts.

Anonymous wrote:Please recount and audit Nevada, New York, California and Colorado. One of them could flip red and I'd bet Hillary loses 2 to 3mm in fraudulent votes.

That's not the goal for lefties. LOL.

tein is being used.

If you look at the history of the liberal left, look at the parallels between days of rage and the riots in the streets you are seeing now. Paid activists, funded by Soros. The goal is to 'bring the war home'. Then it was Vietnam. Now it's Islam and every other 'phobe' liberals accuse others of.

It was the children of the elite left that raised hell then. Those children are now entrenched in the democratic party, and are determined to finish what they started.

Watch the documentary "Days of Rage" and other documentaries about the liberal left and the Weather Underground. It becomes crystal clear.

Please recount and audit Nevada, New York, California and Colorado. One of them could flip red and I'd bet Hillary loses 2 to 3mm in fraudulent votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jill Stein came no where near close to costing HRC the election. The honor of losing belongs to HRC alone.


Stein may be using the delusional desperation of HRC supporters to raise money, though!

Yes she did. There are states where Clinton lost by fewer votes than the number of votes that Stein got.

As for her motivation, she claims it isn't on Hillary Clinton's behalf. She cites reports of potential hacking and fraud. She wants to know if our elections can be trusted. We ALL need to know our elections can be trusted.

It's funny. Before the election, when everyone thought Hillary was sure to win, I didn't hear any of her supporters worrying about the integrity of our elections.

jsteele wrote:OP, it's good to see that you read Talking Points Memo, though you might have credited it as a source. It is interesting to me that Democrats, so used to immediate surrender, can't help but be suspicious of the motives of someone who is willing to put up a fight. Just think how suspicious you will be if a recount finds that Clinton won.

I don't think a recount is likely to result in changing the results, but I don't think it can do any harm. To the contrary, if it creates greater certainty in the vote count, it would be a good thing. I can't fault Stein for making the effort if Democrats are unwilling.

Amen, were the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be demanding the recount, loudly and often.

Anonymous wrote:Jill Stein came no where near close to costing HRC the election. The honor of losing belongs to HRC alone.


Stein may be using the delusional desperation of HRC supporters to raise money, though!

Yes she did. There are states where Clinton lost by fewer votes than the number of votes that Stein got.

As for her motivation, she claims it isn't on Hillary Clinton's behalf. She cites reports of potential hacking and fraud. She wants to know if our elections can be trusted. We ALL need to know our elections can be trusted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything amiss in these calls for a recount. If the situation was reversed Republicans would have ground the country to a halt till every last vote was re-tallied.

Actually, the last ones to do that were, again, Democrats.

That was a very different situation, but nice try.

In what way? They lost and wouldn't accept it. They got smart this time though, and didn't follow the same process because it didn't work.

She needs to stop it.

Who would believe she's sincere after saying this?

She's a fucking opportunist.

"Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria. So I won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton is elected. Fortunately, we have another choice other than these two candidates, who are both promoting lethal policies. But on the issue of war and nuclear weapons, and the potential for nuclear war, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump ..."

The money is not coming from the people. There have been folks analyzing the consistent flow of cash - especially in the middle of the night - and something is definitely not right here.

Stein has been promised something. If Hillary and team had done this, they know the pushback they would receive. It's being led by them, but they are using Stein as a front man.

If you read what the tech people at U. MI said, they were very detailed about how they 'believe' that Clinton should have gotten 30K more votes, and that Trump won by 27K. How convenient. They then go on to admit that there is no evidence of fraud at all.

I imagine Jill Stein, as an average citizen, still prefers to have Hillary in office to Trump and is actually in a position to make some movement in terms of determining whether Trump's shocking win was legit or as suspicious as it seems. That's about it probably.

I hope that as a result of the Wisconsin audit that Trump ends up with more votes. Sweet justice!

OP, if red flags are raised, it might deter future corruption.