General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhether you agree with Jill Steins politics or not, her recount action is good
It will clear up the speculations regarding tomfoolery. We won't go through years of wondering.
Thank you Jill & Rocque De La Fuente for filing for WI recount. Hopefully, you will file for MI and PA as well.
EricMaundry
(1,619 posts)still_one
(92,482 posts)donations.
I honestly don't understand why this would even be an issue.
Some speculate on ulterior motives, but no one is forced to donate, and the donations are being used to fund the recount
What is the problem? It is someone's choice
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Plus, it will benefit the nation.
still_one
(92,482 posts)4139
(1,893 posts)She is now the hero of tens of millions!
Jill and the Green Party are the giant winners.... and it was FREE!
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)hero. It's more than the Democrats have done over the past 20 years to stop election fraud by the Republicans.
4139
(1,893 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)thousand votes were found to be incorrect in Wisconsin. All incorrect votes were for Trump. In one county, more votes were tallied than there were of registered voters in the county and those 500 votes were taken from Trump. No one has been accused of anything yet, but it's definitely fraud of some kind.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)Who said anything about her uncovering anything?
still_one
(92,482 posts)We get a recount. It will satisfy that gnawing worry that the vote was altered in key states.
And the fact that is was initiated by a third party, rather than Clinton, is to our benefit, as the request will seem less partisan.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Temporary mind you, but something extra in the paycheck for those doing the recount this Holiday season.
spanone
(135,914 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And we will go from Clinton actually won to trashing her.
Time to move on.
Would definitely like to eat crow.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I think Hillary is encouraging and supporting her efforts?
Why wouldn't she do it on her own??
Is Donald Trump the type of guy that would say, "No, I cannot completely, take off the table, the possibility that Hillary may need to be investigated further?"?
Donald has connections. Ask Rudy?
Chemisse
(30,820 posts)it would splurt up all the venom that many people feel toward her, and make it a partisan tug of war.
This way, she continues to look like the gracious loser who would be pleasantly surprised if the election was suddenly handed to her via recount.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Jill was not a big fan of Hillary, so by her requesting a recount rather than Hillary, it gives the issue much more legitimacy. If Hillary had questioned the results right away, they just would have accused her of being a sore loser.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)you don't make it go away.
Did you notice how many popular candidates this cycle told us our elections are rigged?
De-legitimizing government is a political means to an end.
Democrats are the target.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's a scam to raise money for the Green Party which will be used against Democrats in the future.
Jill Stein has spent the last year and a half trashing Hillary Clinton and working aggressively to do everything possible to prevent her from becoming president.
spooky3
(34,510 posts)the fees. And she's already hired lawyers. Unless you believe she's Trumpian in being a deadbeat AND willing to have the entire US population shown that she is, she's not going to refuse to pay. Only Trump can get away with that--IOKIYAR.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think she will pay those fees. I just think she will raise more money than is needed for the recount and that the additional money raised will go to the Green Party itself.
Stryst
(714 posts)What restrictions apply to funds raised for a recount?
In Advisory Opinion 2006-24, the Commission concluded that funds raised by party committees and federal candidates/officeholders for recount expenses are subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the federal campaign finance law, but are not contributions or expenditures. Committees must disclose funds received for a recount as "Other Receipts" and funds spent as "Other Disbursements."
So, you're wrong.
You've been making this claim all over DU all morning, and it's just not true. I literally typed the search request one handed while opening my first soda of the day. The fact that you don't seem to be able to do any research before you make claims is not a good look my friend.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would encourage you to do so.
Here's a link:
http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/2006-24.pdf
Here is the relevant passage:
Question 4: May a Federal candidate or the State Party retain excess funds in
the recount funds for future elections, or must the funds be disposed of in some manner?
You inquire very broadly as to all possible uses of leftover recount funds
including, but not limited to, whether such funds must be disposed of or whether they
may be kept in a separate account for future elections of the same candidate or be
transferred to other political committees. The Commission concludes that this question is
speculative, and a definitive answer depends upon various contingencies that may or may
not occur. This question is, therefore, hypothetical.
Commission regulations explain
that requests posing a hypothetical situation, presenting a general question of
interpretation, or regarding the activities of third parties, do not qualify as advisory
opinion requests. 11 CFR 112.1(b). On this basis, the Commission expresses no opinion
regarding this question. If a Federal candidate or State Party in fact has excess funds in a
recount fund after the election, the candidate or party may wish to resubmit this question
for Commission consideration with specific proposed plans for the excess funds.
onecent
(6,096 posts)get on the ball.....TRUMP IS A MONEY GRUBBING MASTERMIND...
LET'S STOP HIM..NOW
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)DFW
(54,465 posts)pnwmom
(109,020 posts)because counting the paper ballots won't tell us anything about cities that use only paperless machines.
And the MIT computer scientist who's been speaking out about this says the electronic machines can be hacked with pre-inserted software without leaving a trace. (It can be set to self-destruct after the election.)
spooky3
(34,510 posts)are necessary. I wanted the Dems to fight harder in prior elections, but if they feel they couldn't do it now, I'm glad someone did.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)before the election, as she seems to be after.
Sid
ananda
(28,890 posts)The election process in too many states is now
completely corrupt.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)What American citizen could possibly object to full transparency?
Seriously.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Assuming that some of the people who are against the recounts are acting in good faith, I still find it hard to wrap my head around their opposition. The fact that the election systems are even _hackable_ is completely unacceptable, yet, somehow, "moving on" is more important. Making headway against disaster is portrayed as a waste of time.
Dr. Mullion Blasto
(104 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)There were claims about voting irregularities made by the Republicans in 2012.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)nini
(16,672 posts).
Calista241
(5,586 posts)3 weeks ago, anyone who questioned the government's ability to put on legit election was laughed out of here, their posts hidden, and some even banned.
Now it's exactly the opposite. The Repubs managed to steal an election in Wisconsin, and this under the nose of a Democratic Secretary of State. They also managed to do the same in Pennsylvania, which has both a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Secretary of State.
The Repubs or even the Russians would have had to have a huge operation, in hundreds of counties, at the same time. And nobody talked, nobody told a friend, nobody sold their story to make a buck, they just disappeared into the wilderness with nobody the wiser.
And all they're doing is recounting the votes. If there was the type of hacking / manipulation going on that many here suspect, that will not be uncovered by a simple recount.
We should be focusing our money and efforts on the Senate race is Louisiana. We should be working on how we oppose Trump. We should be working to win back the trust and confidence of the voters who just abandon our party on the flimsiest of promises to bring jobs back. We should be deciding how we're going to kick their asses in 2018 and 2020.
But no, we've got thousands of people, and millions of dollars recounting vote totals we've already lost. In other threads, we've got people insulting voters, labeling them racist. We're going to need these people in 2018 and 2020. We cannot win the Presidency or pass our agenda by just winning California, New York, Illinois and a couple other states.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)1) The nature of electronic election fraud is such that a huge conspiracy is not essential. Viruses, like hacks, are not introduced on computer systems by huge teams working clandestinely.
2) If it were the case that recounting is pointless, because the hacking did occur (which you previously doubted), then, by simple extension, voting is pointless, because it can be hacked. How, then, can a focus on winning races solve a problem that prevents the races from being won?
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)tandem5
(2,072 posts)So recount away (especially in PA) it will truly never clear things up.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Bringing more eyes to the problem, raising awareness, incrementally improving it, these are the alternatives to a world where simply saying the truth would fix the problem.
The voting system should be transparent and auditable, and randomly, routinely audited.
tandem5
(2,072 posts)When the recount concludes and the results are modified slightly due only to the discovery of some "minor clerical errors" those that wanted only to be comforted will be and in two years we will begin again. I trust in God, but we aren't rowing hard enough to avoid the rocks so I'm simply reminded all those on board of impending pain and death. Maybe they'll row a little harder.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Meanwhile emphasizing that progress seems impossible? To spur folks to new heights of activism?
tandem5
(2,072 posts)bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)In my opinion.
tandem5
(2,072 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts).. if she had rallied her supporters behind Clinton. She is a vain, ridiculous woman. Trying to close the barn door after the horse is out doesn't get her any points with me.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)if this starts the fire, excellent