Saturday, November 26, 2016

Left can't accept defeat...

Many on the left are calling for last minute recounts. Jill Stein apparently has put in a petition in Wisconsin, and is expected to do so in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Clinton team is now getting behind them as well. Let's take a look at the results of these three states:
  • Pennsylvania - Trump won by over 68,000 votes. 
  • Wisconsin - Trump won by over 27,000 vote.
  • Michigan - Trump won by over 11,000 votes.    
The only state (of these) in danger of requiring a recount was Michigan. But they have already spend the past two weeks closely canvassing in each county to make sure all ballots were counted and accounted for. In other words, they have done 90% of what might be expected in a recount, and Trump still leads by over 11,000 votes. 




These are not even the closest states of the election. New Hampshire went to Clinton by under 3000 votes and nobody is requesting a recount there. Clinton won Nevada by a similar margin as Trump won Wisconsin. This is purely an unprecedented exercise in annoyance at this point. No way can anyone actually expect to see a recount over turn what is in excess of 100K votes in these three states. The Clinton team has admitted as much. 

But if the left is proving anything. They are very very very sore losers. 

78 comments:

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

'fraid of a recount?

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Clinton Lead Continues to Grow

Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 2.2 million votes nationally, according to the Cook Political Report.

David Wasserman forecasts Clinton’s final lead will be roughly 2.5 to 2.7 million votes, or about 2%.
______________________

Clinton Will Join Wisconsin Recount

Politico: “After a period of public silence about the results of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer said the campaign will play a role in the Wisconsin recount initiated Friday by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. The Clinton campaign will follow the same approach in Michigan and Pennsylvania if the third-party hopeful pursues recounts in those states.”

Commonsense said...

It amounts to a temper tantrum by a 2 year old. That is why they are not fit to rule.

Commonsense said...

And James is still DEVASTATED by Clinton's defeat.

He must wander the halls at night pissing in his pajamas.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

2,500,00 Americans who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton are dust in the wind, all they are dust in the electoral college wind.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I close my eyes, only for a moment
And the moment's gone
All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, just a drop of water
In an endless sea
All we do crumbles to the ground
Though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Oh, ho, ho
Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It…

2,000,000 Americans who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton are nothing but a nuisance, dust to be cleaned up and thrown into the trash, to the cold hearted truth.

If the situation was reversed, the electoral college would be the dust in the Coldheartedtruth and would be filling the air.

caliphate4vr said...

Hahahahahahahahahah


TRUMP

C.H. Truth said...

No James...

I live in reality. Not crybaby fantasy land. Crybaby fantasy land is the only place where Hillary won this election.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

The country of California !

I can't wait for you to secede !

Then you can run your elections however you want.


In the meantime, California is just one out of 49 states, and it doesn't matter if they vote 99.9% Democrat. They will still only get their own electoral college votes and every vote above and beyond 50% + 1 will be irrelevant.

Sorry!

Commonsense said...

2,500,00 Americans who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton are dust in the wind

CLINTON IN A LANDSLIDE WITH 320 ELECTORAL VOTES!!!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Commonsense said...

Clinton is now trying to steal the election by disenfranchising large numbers of Trump voters.

Pathetic.

Commonsense said...

There's a reason I don't bother with the legacy blog anymore. CH should just cut it loose.

(Or better yet, he should just cut Roger loose).

We really need a more mature liberal blogger to take it over.

opie said...

Crybaby fantasy land is the only place where Hillary won this election.

And the fact she has 2.5 million more votes and still counting the absentee votes....It's too bad that the majority of the country voted for her. You can't deny that fact, CH.. Imagine if the results were reversed. Do you think trump would have conceded????? Doubtful, he would have acted like the crybaby you accuse others of. Oh well, elections have consequences don't they....

opie said...


In the meantime, California is just one out of 49 states,

And just the 7th largest economy of the world......larger than all those flyover states... Yeah.....send them home with their ball and see how well the south does without them. LOL

Commonsense said...

Secede California!!! Secede!!!

Another crybaby shows up.

Commonsense said...

Imagine if the results were reversed. Do you think trump would have conceded?

Yeah, if Trump lost as badly as Hillary Clinton did he would have conceded.

And remember, Clinton did concede.

Now she's unconceding.

Commonsense said...

Statement From President-Elect Donald J. Trump on the Ridiculous Green Party Recount Request:

"The people have spoken and the election is over, and as Hillary Clinton herself said on election night, in addition to her conceding by congratulating me, 'We must accept this result and then look to the future.'

"It is important to point out that with the help of millions of voters across the country, we won 306 electoral votes on Election Day - the most of any Republican since 1988 – and we carried nine of 13 battleground states, 30 of 50 states, and more than 2,600 counties nationwide - the most since President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

"This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount. All three states were won by large numbers of voters, especially Pennsylvania, which was won by more than 70,000 votes.

"This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing."

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Who does an accurate count disenfranchise?

How does an accurate count disenfranchise?

It is an inaccurate count that disenfranchises.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Does Trump sound worried?

KD, Krazy Clinton Trying to Buy the Election said...

God how I do love this.

She had it all, lost, so now The Hilderbeast is going to give it another run, she will LOSE again, and Trump will have the pleasure do defeating her twice.

Thanks Liberals for a double win.

KD said...

James said...
'fraid of a recount?
Not in the least, you spent 1 Billion and lost, so go spend a few more million and lose Twice to Trump.

LOL got to love the stupidity of the leftist.

Commonsense said...

How does an accurate count disenfranchise?

We already have an accurate count of the ballots cast.

The game is to challenge enough Trump's ballots to overturn the election.

It's a blatant attempt to steal the election.

At best it's a costly annoyance should Clinton still lose.

At worst it will create a great deal of unrest should Trump voters rightly feel there choice was stolen by the elite ruling class.

KD, Go For it count and count and count said...

IS it unfair of me to Quote HB on Nov 7th, 2016?

"

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Swing and blue states HB Projections
New Hampshire: Clinton
Pennsylvania: Clinton
Ohio: Trump. barely. Could move to Clinton if Cleveland goes hard Clinton
Nevada: Clinton
North Carolina: Clinton?
Florida: Clinton
Minnesota: Clinton
Michigan: Clinton
Wisconsin: Clinton
New Mexico: Clinton
Georgia: Clinton: Barely but ..

All based on facts and experience.

Comey letter has minimal but sufficient to move one or two percent in those voting tomorrow.

Clinton has Obama, Gore, Bernie, Bill Clinton, Biden. Outstanding field offices in critical states like Pennsylvania. Trump: .........
Trump has ... Trump

Neither the speaker of the house, or majority leader will appear at his events. Trump gets.. Giuliani. Who forgot who was mayor of New York on 9/11

The devastation will be confirmed by 10: 45 PM EST.


I have been told it is not unfair of me to quote HB.

LOL @ HB everyday in every way.

Indy Voter said...

Shades of 2000 and, especially, 2004. Instead of Diebold, the villain this time is Putin.

Somehow, though, I don't think there would have been acceptance by Trump's supporters if he'd lost by a small number of votes in 2 or 3 states.

wphamilton said...

This "participation" in the recount, along with the continuing steady drip of planted "human Hillary" stories, leads me to believe that the Clintons still strive for some sort of leadership, or at least relevance, in the Democratic Party. This is part of a threat, folks, and not just a threat to Trump but to the Democrats as well. The Party, if anyone is left at the helm, needs urgently to wake up and make some moves to counter.

Indy Voter said...

I'm reminded of a Gandhi quote that goes something like "There go my people. I must catch up with them, for I am their leader." I hope that the Clinton's no longer are the leaders of the Democratic Party, but I have a feeling Hillary won't go as easily into electoral retirement as Gore did.

Commonsense said...

Somehow, though, I don't think there would have been acceptance by Trump's supporters if he'd lost by a small number of votes in 2 or 3 states.

It's not a small number. The narrowest margin is in Michigan at about 10,000 votes. The widest is in Pennsylvania at about 68,000 votes.

Clinton would have to overturn all three of those results to win. A virtual impossibility.

And the electoral vote count wasn't even close.

So I would say Trump's supporter would have accepted that result if the shoe was on the other foot.

Especially since they have been told since the second week in October that Clinton was going to win IN A LANDSLIDE and that it was all over but the shouting.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

e San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution, introduced by Board President London Breed, in response to the election of Donald Trump. The resolution reads as follows:



WHEREAS, On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected to become the 45th President of the United States; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That no matter the threats made by President-elect Trump, San Francisco will remain a Sanctuary City. We will not turn our back on the men and women from other countries who help make this city great, and who represent over one third of our population. This is the Golden Gate—we build bridges, not walls; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we will never back down on women’s rights, whether in healthcare, the workplace, or any other area threatened by a man who treats women as obstacles to be demeaned or objects to be assaulted. And just as important, we will ensure our young girls grow up with role models who show them they can be or do anything; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That there will be no conversion therapy, no withdrawal of rights in San Francisco. We began hosting gay weddings twelve years ago, and we are not stopping now. And to all the LGBTQ people all over the country who feel scared, bullied, or alone: You matter. You are seen; you are loved; and San Francisco will never stop fighting for you; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we still believe in this nation’s founding principle of religious freedom. We do not ban people for their faith. And the only lists we keep are on invitations to come pray together; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That Black Lives Matter in San Francisco, even if they may not in the White House. And guided by President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, we will continue reforming our police department and rebuilding trust between police and communities of color so all citizens feel safe in their neighborhoods; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That climate change is not a hoax, or a plot by the Chinese. In this city, surrounded by water on three sides, science matters. And we will continue our work on CleanPower, Zero Waste, and everything else we are doing to protect future generations; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we have been providing universal health care in this city for nearly a decade, and if the new administration follows through on its callous promise to revoke health insurance from 20 million people, San Franciscans will be protected; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we are the birthplace of the United Nations, a city made stronger by the thousands of international visitors we welcome every day. We will remain committed to internationalism and to our friends and allies around the world—whether the administration in Washington is or not; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That San Francisco will remain a Transit First city and will continue building Muni and BART systems we can all rely upon, whether this administration follows through on its platform to eliminate federal transit funding or not; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That California is the sixth largest economy in the world. The Bay Area is the innovation capital of the country. We will not be bullied by threats to revoke our federal funding, nor will we sacrifice our values or members of our community for your dollar; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we condemn all hate crimes and hate speech perpetrated in this election’s wake. That although the United States will soon have a President who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the values we hold in the highest regard in San Francisco, it cannot change who we are, and it will never change our values. We argue, we campaign, we debate vigorously within San Francisco, but on these points we are 100 percent united. We will fight discrimination and recklessness in all its forms. We are one City. And we will move forward together.

Commonsense said...

I'm reminded of a Gandhi quote that goes something like "There go my people. I must catch up with them, for I am their leader."

Gandhi stole it from the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin.

One of the most famous cases of plagiarism in history.

Commonsense said...

And why would I care about a temper tantrum from a California city council Roger.

And you wonder why no one reads you blog post anymore.

Grow up.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Mr. Trump suggested in the weeks before the election that the vote could be rigged.
_____________

Grounds for a recount right there. :-)

Commonsense said...

If by some miracle Clinton does manage to overturn the results of the election then you would prove Trump right.

And then there would be something akin to civil war.

KD, Dems to loss Again said...

The thing as already stated is she has to steal all three states to take it away from WE the People.

Can she, nope, loss number two is coming and I for one am enjoying it, they will spend about 10 million dollars .


After this my new advice to Trump, his team and all Republicans, roll over the Dems at ever turn, give them no quarter .


Michigan 16
Pennsylvania 20
Wisconsin 10

C.H. Truth said...

Somehow, though, I don't think there would have been acceptance by Trump's supporters if he'd lost by a small number of votes in 2 or 3 states.

68,000
27,000
11,000

these are not small numbers... and asking for recounts on these margins is unprecedented (and will likely never happen again).

November 26, 2016 at

KD, Peaceful no more, fuck you losey liberal suckasses said...

What is so good about this is the hostility it is causing already, IF the Dems thought that there was going to be a peaceful transition of power they can not forget that with this bullshit.

I have already written my Congress Woman and told here, to pull off the gloves and break some kneecaps.

The Dems broke this wide open. At every turn I want everything Obama and his thugs, like Hillary touch broken and burn it down.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...


FURTHER RESOLVED, That we condemn all hate crimes and hate speech perpetrated in this election’s wake. That although the United States will soon have a President who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the values we hold in the highest regard in San Francisco, it cannot change who we are, and it will never change our values. We argue, we campaign, we debate vigorously within San Francisco, but on these points we are 100 percent united. We will fight discrimination and recklessness in all its forms. We are one City. And we will move forward together.


This is Trump's country

C.H. Truth said...

FURTHER RESOLVED, That we condemn all hate crimes and hate speech perpetrated in this election’s wake.

Unless it's a violent riot perpetrated by BLM or the execution of police officers. Those are perfectly acceptable.

We are one City. And we will move forward together.

Accept for anyone who voted for Trump. Then you are not welcome.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

68,000
27,000
11,000

Ok, what was the original total number of votes that were counted?

Simple math that even K'putz might, just might, give us the percentage so we can see if they are significant.

For example, if there were 4,000,000 votes in the 68,000 state, it's 1.7%. When you look at the full picture, that's not much.

Unlikely? But possible.

C.H. Truth said...

No Roger - it's statistically impossible for a recount to change by 68,000 votes. Even if 1.7% of the ballots were miscounted, there would be no statistical reason why they would be all miscounted for the same candidate.

In the Florida recount (for example) they had nearly six million voters. The actual change (which included many more under-votes than you will see in 2016 because of the punch cards) was about 1200 votes.

- Pennsylvania (which Trump won by 68,000) has no paper ballots in 80% of the state. It's all done electronically, with no paper trail. Because of this, there is no "undercounts" due to possible hanging chads. The recount would be basically nothing more than rechecking the machine totals to see if they were accurately reported. This means that Clinton would have to pick up the 68000 votes via a recount of approximately 1.2 million paper ballots. That's almost six percent of the total ballots. Assuming that Clinton voters undervoted by a margin of two to one... you would be suggesting that at least 15% of all those ballots were under votes.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You are assuming one thing. Hacking.

If the electronic devices are independent, not possible. But on the internet??? Just for thought.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You are probably correct. But a recount, why not?

Remember ch, you didn't dispute with Trump on a "rigged" system.

I'm confident that if the situation were revered, you would be demanding a recount.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

reversed

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The total count, 1.7%¿¿¿

C.H. Truth said...

The election devices are kept in storage. They are not connected on-line. You would have to hack the machines individually.

But it sounds like you are suggesting that someone went in and hacked them "after" the election results had been reported, thus changing the results. (that would be suggesting that you are condoning that possibility).

Had there been "hacking" prior to or during the election, then those "hacked" results would still be on the machines. There would be no way for them to be "recounted" in any other way than they were counted on election night.

C.H. Truth said...

I'm confident that if the situation were revered, you would be demanding a recount.

No Roger - nobody in their right mind would call for a multiple state recount when the winner got over 300 ECV.

Secondly - there are laws in place that require recounts when there is any statistical chance that the final results may be wrong. These states are not only no where's near these levels, but so far out of reach that the statistical chances are virtualy zero.

There is a reason why I have not ever gotten seven statewide races wrong in an election year Roger... and why (once again) my analysis "this year" was just as right as it was the past two elections when the guy I didn't vote for won. Because numbers and statistics are not partisan and they do not fall into emotional traps.

So not in a million years would anyone with a Math/Statistics degree ever call for a recount in these situations.


Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I've seen a story that I need to verify. One country in Wisconsin reported that Hillary got 1,500 more votes in a recount.

But Facebook posts aren't always any good.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

If I verify it, I will post it.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Nope. Social media bs

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

After a flood of phone calls, messages, and emails, Hillary Clinton has decided to join the request to recount the swing states, where the whole election could go in her favor. The Clinton campaign’s general counsel Marc Elias said people have been urging the popular vote winner to check it out. This is what happened.



Swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin decided this presidential election, where Trump won by a mere margin of 107,000 out of the 120+ million total votes. That means even the smallest element of wrong-doing unearthed could result in a Clinton presidency.

Rolling Stone investigative reporter Greg Palest said state election officials simply discarded thousands of provisional and absentee votes. Palest also claims that a program called Interstate Crosscheck wrongly purged hundreds of thousands of minority voters in this election. He said:



‘Trump’s margin is less than 11,600 in Michigan, 27,200 in Wisconsin and 68,000 in Pennsylvania. If just a few thousand votes are found in Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary Clinton becomes president by 276 electoral votes versus 264 for Trump.’

Elias wrote in Medium that the Russians involved themselves in the U.S. election:

‘The U.S. government concluded that Russian state actors were behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and the personal email accounts of Hillary for America campaign officials, and just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Russian government was behind much of the “fake news” propaganda that circulated online in the closing weeks of the election.’

Clinton’s attorney said:

‘It should go without saying that we take these concerns extremely seriously. We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton, and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.’

Apparently the Clinton campaign has been working behind the scenes to see if there was enough evidence to move forward with a recount:

‘We have quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.’

Clinton’s campaign worked with attorneys and data scientist analysts to look for abnormalities in the voting. This would indicate a possible hacked result. These analysts have expertise in technology, politics, and academia.

Then the campaign met with outside experts to go over those results. After that, they created a reference list of theories and investigated them. Clinton’s people also looked at how laws and practices relate to recounts and related issues. Elias said that perhaps, the most important effort was:

‘We have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses — where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.’

Commonsense said...

You are assuming one thing. Hacking.

Sorry, Hillary Clinton Fans. There’s ‘Zero Evidence’ of Election Hacking.

Democrats cried hallelujah when computer scientists reportedly pressed Hillary Clinton ask for recounts. But even those experts say an election hack is beyond unlikely.


So the question is why are they wasting everybody's time with a recount since only a lunatic would think it would change the results of the election.

Commonsense said...

After a flood of phone calls, messages, and emails,

Many of them were death threats to electors.

Electoral College members harassed, threatened in last-ditch attempt to block Trump

Republican members of the Electoral College are facing pressure, harassment and even death threats as disgruntled opponents of President-elect Donald Trump mount a last-ditch push to keep him out of the White House.

The electors are slated to meet Dec. 19 in their home states to make the Nov. 8 election results official, which is normally a formality — but not this year.

Texas Republican Alex Kim said he and his fellow electors have been inundated with emails and phone calls from those urging them to consider switching their votes for Mr. Trump to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“At first, everyone was kind of enchanted by it,” Mr. Kim told NBC5 in Dallas-Fort Worth.” Now all the electors are starting to get beaten down. There are some electors who have been threatened with harm or with death.”

Michael Banerian, a Michigan elector and youth chairman of the state Republican Party, said he has received several messages threatening violence.

“You have people saying, ‘You’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’” Mr. Banerian told The Detroit News. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”


If Hillary Clinton had any character she would publicly demand her supporters to stop the madness and accept the results of the election.

opie said...

Doncha think a confirmation in a recount will support that the election was not a fraud as your boy was fond of saying before he won??????

LOL

opie said...


Many of them were death threats to electors

LOL...Many? WTF does many mean??????? Nothing like hyperbole to make a point......Seems got me that is no different then the BS of rat and sucking on guns.....Oh well.

KD, HyperBolic Wrong so Often, comedy on parade said...

I'm confident that if the situation were revered, you would be demanding a recount."

Wrong again, as wrong as Kerry and Hillary in a Landslide.


I am in full favor of the recounts, Hillary will lose again and the 2nd Defeat will be as much fun to watch as the first Defeat.

Losing to Trump Twice in a span of about a Month , Priceless.

wphamilton said...

Isn't there as much chance for fraud in a recount as in the original election? In an election where there was no evidence of fraud, and no rational reason to demand a recount, doesn't a recount increase the chances of fraud?

opie said...

You are correct WP. But with trump crying foul for weeks before the election, this is now a chance to prove the election was sound and not problematic. I see no problem with that and your premise of increase in fraud is unfounded.

wphamilton said...

The recount is nominally predicated on the premise of fraud. It's Stein's stated rationale. So how can it be "unfounded" to point out that the recount under these circumstances poses a greater risk of fraud?

The real reason for the recount is that Clinton needs to stay in the public eye, and stay politically involved, at least until the DNC elects leaders next March. There is, literally, no other reason for it.

wphamilton said...

Jill Stein is probably fully aware of the visceral negative reactions the American public has had with recounts of settled elections, and even the unsettled ones such as Bush vs Gore when they drag out too long. She knows that "ensuring fairness" isn't going to pass the sniff test - the time for that is between elections, before and during the voting. She damages her political brand, such as it is, and has nothing to gain from it. As mentioned, "fairness" isn't assured or even tested by recounts.

Except maybe, the millions raised for the recounts, which won't actually cost so much. Millions that came in large doses from Clinton PAC's. Maybe Trump is onto something here regarding motivations.

opie said...

ully aware of the visceral negative reactions the American public has had with recounts of settled elections,

I see another made up factoid with no merit. I for one want the recount to confirm the results and the likes of you, trump, and the rest to apologize for the rants of rigged election before the election. Maybe then you. Imagine can stop posting what you think others think. Imagine if the shoe was on trumps foot and the BS that would be spewing.

opie said...

. So how can it be "unfounded" to point out that the recount under these circumstances poses a greater risk of fraud?

That my friend, WP, is a do loop. LOL!!!!!

wphamilton said...

Software engineer is not in the cards for you Opie. I know what you're trying to say - infinite loop - but "do loop" is so far off that my advice is don't even try in the future.

Although more precisely it's an "if - then" in coding, or deduction in the logical sense, or an intersection in set theory - take your pick.

wphamilton said...

On the other hand Opie, because of the logical fallacy of posing a special case contradicting the general American public as an attempted refutation of some observation about reaction of the American public, I'd say stay away from mathematical set theory as well.

You cannot argue from a specific case - you - to the general - the American public. Nor can you argue that an observation about public opinion must aply to every American in particular. So logic analogies may not be your forte. Why don't you stick with "common sense" or something similar to that?

opie said...

because of the logical fallacy of posing a special case contradicting the general American public as an attempted refutation of some observation about reaction of the American public

That is the biggest pile of nonsense you have ever posted. The only thing you proved by that erudite post, is you have a great sense of false grandeur and it appears you are dashing at windmills. You are the one who is speaking for others and not yourself. I pointed that out to you which has struck a nerve. LOL Keep trying it is rather amusing.

opie said...

Yep, I wondered where the BS was coming from......now trump alleges millions illegally voted. Yep, that sure makes him a credible leader. What an idiot. Maybe WP can provide the source that americans would care for a recount on a settled election. I'm sure the source is as credible as donnie claim. LOL

Trump issues stunning claim that ‘millions’ voted illegally
Dylan Stableford 2 hours 9 minutes ago Comments Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email
Trump claims he would’ve beaten Clinton in the popular vote had it not for “the millions of people who voted illegally.” (Joe Raedle/Reuters)
Trump claims he would’ve beaten Clinton in the popular vote had it not for “the millions of people who voted illegally.” (Joe Raedle/Reuters)
President-elect Donald Trump, who defeated Hillary Clinton by winning the Electoral College in the election earlier this month, claimed Sunday that he would’ve beaten her in the popular vote too if not for “the millions of people who voted illegally.”

It’s remarkable and unprecedented for a victorious presidential candidate to claim widespread voter fraud. There is no evidence to indicate that there was a significant number of people, let alone millions, who voted illegally in the election on Nov. 8.

Trump clinched his stunning victory over Clinton by amassing more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win. He won 290 to Clinton’s 232, and is ahead in Michigan, though the contest for its 16 electoral votes is still too close to call. But Clinton is on track to win the national popular vote by around 2.5 million, a loss that Trump appears to find hard to swallow.

wphamilton said...

Well that was weird. (opie). I think I'll rest my case with what's already been written here, rather than dive down a rabbit hole.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

It's really interesting, isn't it, how suddenly WP knows all things... ;-)

wphamilton said...

Everyone contributing to this blog remembers the Bush/Gore recount saga in 2000, and what came of them. I discussed it at length with most of them, as it occurred. It's strange that you'd consider that some kind of arcane knowledge.

opie said...

I think I'll rest my case with what's already been written here, rather than dive down a rabbit hole.

That your memory trumps the facts of the floriduh recount??????

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Thanx for trying to prove a flawed logic set????

opie said...

BTW WP... marked paper ballots were not the problem in floriduh. It was the antiquated punch cards that caused the biggest headaches. Suggest you review this to refresh your memory. Paper ballots was either a vote or not and easy to interpret. A hole had many permutations that could make it a vote or not.

https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/courses/275f00/abc-chads.html

opie said...

This trump BS is the reason I completely support the recount in spite of someones claims that a recount is counter productive. You would figure that some of these 3 million illegal votes would turn up in Wi and thus prove that the showman has no clothes.

Trump makes baseless claim that millions voted illegally for Clinton
President-elect Donald Trump parroted a widely debunked conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because of massive voter fraud, creating even more consternation around the election results as Green Party candidate Jill Stein leads calls

Good day for the USA

opie said...

Fact Checker: 4 Pinocchios for Trump’s assertion about voter fraud

https://www.washingtonpost.com

The recount will confirm this and then maybe you trump supporters will see the reality of our showman in chief.

wphamilton said...

WaPo cannot credibly fact check Trump, any more than Fox News can credibly fact check Clinton.

That said, someone needs to take Trump's Twitter access away again. And it would probably be a good idea to implement parental controls on his internet connection.

Ren Jander said...

THERE WILL BE NO RECOUNT IN PENNSYLVANIA: Jill Stein Perpetrating Election Fraud http://janderresearch.blogspot.com/2016/11/there-will-be-no-recount-in.html?m=1

wphamilton said...

Maybe, Ren Jander. She has "filed" in 100 precincts in Pennsylvania and allegedly has filed in court for a statewide. I doubt that her "filings" have dotted all the i's and crossed the t's, and I also doubt that she can show standing in a lawsuit. Apparently it's more about chaos and gumming up the works than about fairness.

What comes of that depends on how lenient the electoral boards and courts feel like being. My best guess is nothing but a lot more complaining and insinuations, and another round of fundraising perhaps.

opie said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
WaPo cannot credibly fact check Trump

Ad hominem, something you do ver well when presented with data. LOL

opie said...

nonymous wphamilton said...
WaPo cannot credibly fact check Trump

Seems to me you are more full of it than donnie. LOL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/29/trump-camps-repeated-use-of-dubious-sources-on-voter-fraud/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-twitter-720a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Another sad day as they toss the bath water and baby out.

wphamilton said...

If you have chosen sides for me and want a flame war, let me tell you now that it's not going to happen.

The Washington Post is, sadly, not what it used to be. In your link they disavow their own study and call Trump a liar for citing it. They are correct that the finding of 14% of the illegals registered to vote doesn't prove that 14% of ALL illegals are registered, but it does prove that there is reason for concern.

opie said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
If you have chosen sides for me and want a flame war, let me tell you now that it's not going to happen.


The Washington Post is, sadly, not what it used to be. In your link they disavow their own study

That really is an amusing statement for someone as smart as you WP. No flame intended, but if you had done a little homework you would have discovered that was not a post study, but a study done by a BLOG hosted by them. IOW, that is like having someone post as proof, your claim voters did not want a recount as fact. Thanx again for trying, but a little research before jumping on the trump BS would do you a world of good.