Jill Stein claims that 75,000 votes in Detroit did not vote for president, 7 times higher than the national average. IF this is true than I smell a rat in Detroit.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,894
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
^^^ No, That numbers and recounting will do nothing. The first set of numbers show President-elect Trump was the winner. Libs/radlibs can't accept this and want new numbers.
^^^^the hope for change was based on some cries from a group of computer scientists and exit poll discrepancies. my guess is that if there was tampering, the same people that did the tampering will also be involved in the recounts. So, yeah, its probably a lost cause.
I'm thinking they will find some really really irregular irregularities. 70k+ people voted down ballot only? Seems fishy
I've heard that but I've also heard anyone who wrote someone in was officially recorded as leaving the top line blank. So anyone who wrote in Bernie, Obama, Pence, etc. would be included in that 70k number. I agree it sounds fishy but it's possibly innocent. Definitely worth recounting to be sure.
I'm thinking they will find some really really irregular irregularities. 70k+ people voted down ballot only? Seems fishy
I've heard that but I've also heard anyone who wrote someone in was officially recorded as leaving the top line blank. So anyone who wrote in Bernie, Obama, Pence, etc. would be included in that 70k number. I agree it sounds fishy but it's possibly innocent. Definitely worth recounting to be sure.
write in validity is a state by state thing whether they are recorded or not.
it pays to an informed voter. Ohio has recordable write ins.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm thinking they will find some really really irregular irregularities. 70k+ people voted down ballot only? Seems fishy
I've heard that but I've also heard anyone who wrote someone in was officially recorded as leaving the top line blank. So anyone who wrote in Bernie, Obama, Pence, etc. would be included in that 70k number. I agree it sounds fishy but it's possibly innocent. Definitely worth recounting to be sure.
write in validity is a state by state thing whether they are recorded or not.
it pays to an informed voter. Ohio has recordable write ins.
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times.
There's always Israel money and war money, but money to ensure fair elections, not so much.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
What mystifies me is that people are shocked when so many people find Hillary Clinton a disgusting excuse for human being. She is very much hated.
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
What mystifies me is that people are shocked when so many people find Hillary Clinton a disgusting excuse for human being. She is very much hated.
I do think that hatred is bred by FOX and fake news. Limbaugh and Alex Jones, etc. We don't have to take everything to that level. I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician and was a terrible candidate who ran a worse campaign. For all the things Trump said and did that would have destroyed a typical campaign, so too would have being the subject of an active FBI investigation or calling a large voting block deplorable. I was shocked by the claims that she was the most qualified candidate we had ever seen and by the almost religious devotion to her. But calling her "a disgusting excuse for a human being" because you disagree with her politically? That's a bridge I won't cross. Where is the evidence that she is a disgusting human being? She has been so scripted for 25 years how do we even know what kind of human being she is? It just doesn't have to go there when we disagree.
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
What mystifies me is that people are shocked when so many people find Hillary Clinton a disgusting excuse for human being. She is very much hated.
I do think that hatred is bred by FOX and fake news. Limbaugh and Alex Jones, etc. We don't have to take everything to that level. I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician and was a terrible candidate who ran a worse campaign. For all the things Trump said and did that would have destroyed a typical campaign, so too would have being the subject of an active FBI investigation or calling a large voting block deplorable. I was shocked by the claims that she was the most qualified candidate we had ever seen and by the almost religious devotion to her. But calling her "a disgusting excuse for a human being" because you disagree with her politically? That's a bridge I won't cross. Where is the evidence that she is a disgusting human being? She has been so scripted for 25 years how do we even know what kind of human being she is? It just doesn't have to go there when we disagree.
she was a flawed candidate. next to Obama, most everyone is. bottom line is that has the background qualifications for the job. Now, whether that background meant she would have been a great President, we'll probably never know.
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
What mystifies me is that people are shocked when so many people find Hillary Clinton a disgusting excuse for human being. She is very much hated.
I do think that hatred is bred by FOX and fake news. Limbaugh and Alex Jones, etc. We don't have to take everything to that level. I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician and was a terrible candidate who ran a worse campaign. For all the things Trump said and did that would have destroyed a typical campaign, so too would have being the subject of an active FBI investigation or calling a large voting block deplorable. I was shocked by the claims that she was the most qualified candidate we had ever seen and by the almost religious devotion to her. But calling her "a disgusting excuse for a human being" because you disagree with her politically? That's a bridge I won't cross. Where is the evidence that she is a disgusting human being? She has been so scripted for 25 years how do we even know what kind of human being she is? It just doesn't have to go there when we disagree.
Collusion between a journalist and any politician should not be seen in any way, shape or form as patriotic or even positive. You're delusional if you think that this was done out of some sort of good samaritan prevention of the apocalypse, rather than ratings or back-room transactions.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Collusion between a journalist and any politician should not be seen in any way, shape or form as patriotic or even positive. You're delusional if you think that this was done out of some sort of good samaritan prevention of the apocalypse, rather than ratings or back-room transactions.
Wise words as always. You would do well to listen to him, vaggar99. Benjs is smarter and more eloquent than many of us here, myself certainly included.
Collusion between a journalist and any politician should not be seen in any way, shape or form as patriotic or even positive. You're delusional if you think that this was done out of some sort of good samaritan prevention of the apocalypse, rather than ratings or back-room transactions.
Didn't many of our founding fathers own and operate printing presses and newspaper distribution? I thought early colonial newspapers were commonly seen as mouth pieces for political parties. I think we should revert to that.
Today the news is trying to be seen as unbiased, and when they (inevitably) spin the facts, credibility is lost. Newspapers should have the ability to present the facts, and espouse an agenda as they see fit. Then at least we would have some transparency, instead of news networks going: "You're biased!" "Nu-uh! You're biased!".
I'm not suggesting a state owned media. But I don't see an issue with media working with politicians to get their message out, even better if the media agrees with their message and wants to promote it.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Collusion between a journalist and any politician should not be seen in any way, shape or form as patriotic or even positive. You're delusional if you think that this was done out of some sort of good samaritan prevention of the apocalypse, rather than ratings or back-room transactions.
Wise words as always. You would do well to listen to him, vaggar99. Benjs is smarter and more eloquent than many of us here, myself certainly included.
it was a joke in response to what i saw as a very biased graphic. of course i don't believe that collusion amongst journalists is a good thing. But can you blame these guys for being confused/amused/bemused by this guy? This is a man who lies all day long and no one is allowed to call him out on it without a jury trial first? C'mon man
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
No,
That numbers and recounting will do nothing.
The first set of numbers show President-elect Trump was the winner.
Libs/radlibs can't accept this and want new numbers.
cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/03/504285672/jill-stein-campaign-drops-her-recount-effort-in-pennsylvania
bipartisanreport.com/2016/12/04/breaking-federal-court-intervention-announced-for-immediate-recount-in-swing-state-details/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/michigan-election-recount/index.html
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
it pays to an informed voter. Ohio has recordable write ins.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The Republican incumbent concedes a race in which his Democratic opponent received almost 100,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton did at the top of the ticket.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Jebus
Numbers again, I thought the Democratic opponent received almost 100,001 votes.
Get the numbers right folks.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/
There's always Israel money and war money, but money to ensure fair elections, not so much.
louderwithcrowder.com/7-undeniable-reasons-you-can-not-vote-hillary-clinton/
https://spectator.org/the-hillary-alinsky-lucifer-connection/
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Today the news is trying to be seen as unbiased, and when they (inevitably) spin the facts, credibility is lost. Newspapers should have the ability to present the facts, and espouse an agenda as they see fit. Then at least we would have some transparency, instead of news networks going: "You're biased!" "Nu-uh! You're biased!".
I'm not suggesting a state owned media. But I don't see an issue with media working with politicians to get their message out, even better if the media agrees with their message and wants to promote it.