Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Dec '16 15:26
    She insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election, but Goldsmith said Stein's legal team presented only "speculative claims" about vulnerable machines, "not actual injury."

    The judge said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system "has never been endorsed by any court."


    Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' out for ya? At least you had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 15:42 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    She insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election, but Goldsmith said Stein's legal team presented only "speculative claims" about vulnerable machines, "not actual injury."

    The judge said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system "has never been endorsed by any court."


    Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' ...[text shortened]... had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
    The decision is BS. Judges have no legitimate power to declare that a party who has fulfilled all the legal requirements to trigger a recount doesn't have "standing" because they can't, in the opinion of the judges, actually win from a recount of votes. The applicable statute is clear:

    A candidate for office who believes he or she is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass or returns of the votes by the election inspectors may petition for a recount of the votes cast for that office in any precinct or precincts as provided in this chapter.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ncikcp5v1k3lggsdgijnojpw))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-862

    We have seen from the first day in Wisconsin that votes for Jill Stein were omitted from the final counts; that is really all that is necessary for her and the people who supported her to be "aggrieved".

    This is just another example of the corruption that our dominant two party system encourages and thrives by.

    EDIT: I'm sorry I referenced the wrong statute; the applicable one is here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2jtdrxgipmwzaf2cnzdtfq51))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-879

    as 1(a) make reference to section 841 which specifically includes the Presidential race.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qhdrkiztldp3nhy5ibxpthal))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-168-841&query=on&highlight=841

    Pertinent to the discussion is section 1 (b): (b) The petition alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns made by the inspectors, or by a board of county canvassers or the board of state canvassers. The petition shall contain specific allegations of wrongdoing only if evidence of that wrongdoing is available to the petitioner. If evidence of wrongdoing is not available, the petitioner is only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition without further specification.

    Stein's petition clearly meets all these statutory requirements and the State Courts had no justification for adding to them by creative interpretation of the word "aggrieved".

    EDIT2: Incredibly given the statutory text I have put in bold above,:

    "Rather, Plaintiffs' asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

    However, the statute is clear and unequivocal that such "evidence" is unnecessary:

    , the petitioner is only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition without further specification.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Dec '16 16:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The decision is BS. Judges have no legitimate power to declare that a party who has fulfilled all the legal requirements to trigger a recount doesn't have "standing" because they can't, in the opinion of the judges, actually win from a recount of votes. The applicable statute is clear:

    A candidate for office who believes he or she is aggrieved on acco ...[text shortened]... only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition [b]without further specification.
    [/b]
    Sorry the quote in EDIT2 from the Judge's ruling is here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/michigan-election-recount/
  4. 08 Dec '16 16:47
    Originally posted by sh76
    She insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election, but Goldsmith said Stein's legal team presented only "speculative claims" about vulnerable machines, "not actual injury."

    The judge said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system "has never been endorsed by any court."


    Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' ...[text shortened]... had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
    CNN is reporting that Hillary is still 20 points ahead of Trump.
  5. 08 Dec '16 22:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    CNN is reporting that Hillary is still 20 points ahead of Trump.
    Actually 2 points. Could be three million votes by the time we're done.
  6. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    09 Dec '16 06:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The decision is BS. Judges have no legitimate power to declare that a party who has fulfilled all the legal requirements to trigger a recount doesn't have "standing" because they can't, in the opinion of the judges, actually win from a recount of votes. The applicable statute is clear:

    A candidate for office who believes he or she is aggrieved on acco ...[text shortened]... only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition [b]without further specification.
    [/b]
    The party pooper statute clearly and unequivocally states, and I quote:
    "If the party of the first part wishes to party with the party of the second part and said second party part is not in compliance with said request the party of the second part is hereinwith designated as the party pooper part parting from the party of the first parts proposal."
  7. 09 Dec '16 07:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    She insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election, but Goldsmith said Stein's legal team presented only "speculative claims" about vulnerable machines, "not actual injury."

    The judge said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system "has never been endorsed by any court."


    Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' ...[text shortened]... had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
    Kind of ironic that the Republicans oppose the recount on the basis that there is no voter fraud as they pass laws to suppress the vote on the basis of voter fraud.
  8. 09 Dec '16 07:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' out for ya? At least you had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
    Sounds like you are please that you don't have free and fair elections. What were you scared of?
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    09 Dec '16 17:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Sounds like you are please that you don't have free and fair elections. What were you scared of?
    Actually, what the recounts are finding is that the elections were fair the first time around.
  10. 09 Dec '16 18:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Actually, what the recounts are finding is that the elections were fair the first time around.
    *buzzer sounds*

    If the recount finds no significant difference, it shows that the election was counted fairly. There has never been a free and fair presidential election in the U.S.
  11. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    09 Dec '16 18:13
    There’s something fishy going on in Michigan, where a full one-third of precincts in Wayne County – which includes Detroit – were unable to have ballots counted due to discrepancies with ballot counts.

    And one person reports single ballots being counted as many as six times.

    On Wednesday, a federal judge halted Michigan’s recount after two days of ballot counting, saying there’s not a legitimate reason to continue. After all, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who asked for the recount – suggesting the possibility of vote fraud and stating, “We must have a system we can be confident in” – never even had a chance of winning with just 1 percent of the vote.

    But the judge’s decision came just after news reports began surfacing of possible vote fraud.

    The worst of the problems were in Wayne County, Michigan’s largest county, where 66 percent of voters cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton and just 29 percent for Donald Trump.

    ballotThere was such a problem, the Detroit News reported, “[O]fficials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.”

    The Detroit paper continued, “Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/recount-uncovers-serious-fraud-in-detroit/
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Dec '16 19:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    Actually, what the recounts are finding is that the elections were fair the first time around.
    The ONE recount that is being done is finding that thousands of votes were incorrectly tabulated or not tabulated at all.
  13. 10 Dec '16 03:10
    About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling to stop the recount. Seven of the nine justices saw constitutional problems with the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution in the Florida Supreme Court's plan for recounting ballots, citing differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount. Five justices held there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped and Florida be allowed to certify its vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. The decision was extremely controversial due to its partisan split and the majority's unusual instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". Gore said he disagreed with the Court's decision, but conceded the election.
    U
    Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's certification of the election results was thus upheld, allowing Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him president-elect
  14. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    10 Dec '16 18:58
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    There’s something fishy going on in Michigan, where a full one-third of precincts in Wayne County – which includes Detroit – were unable to have ballots counted due to discrepancies with ballot counts.

    And one person reports single ballots being counted as many as six times.

    On Wednesday, a federal judge halted Michigan’s recount after two days of ...[text shortened]... precincts, 392 of 662.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/recount-uncovers-serious-fraud-in-detroit/
    It's worse in Nevada. For example, in one area alone 3000 voted Democrat...


    ( 2300 live in that area )
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    11 Dec '16 01:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The ONE recount that is being done is finding that thousands of votes were incorrectly tabulated or not tabulated at all.
    In a random, nonpartisan manner that makes almost no net difference.