Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 24, 2016

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein wants a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and has asked supporters to donate to her cause. "This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands!" Stein says on her fundraising page. "We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we're turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen." In just a few hours since the announcement, Stein reached $1 million and Twitter was trending with "Jill Stein" and #Recount2016. While many states, like Florida, automatically trigger a recount when the election is close, Wisconsin only holds recounts if a candidate requests that it occur.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

There are only a few days remaining," said Lynn Sweet, bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times on CNN Wednesday. "You can't wait forever. There are only a few days left in each of these states. The main ones they are talking about are Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. If they're going to do something, they have to do it in the next few days."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Bloomberg reported on how a team of hackers targeted election throughout Latin America," the EFF wrote. "There was also plenty of hacking related to the 2016 US election, with two separate major dumps of political emails and several reports of attempted attacks on election systems. These attacks tell us that hacking groups, some of whom may be nation states, were particularly interested in affecting this election's outcome."

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-24 12:35 AM | Reply

These are the very same states that the hillary supporters want hillary to challenge the election results, but it does not look like hillary will do it so it seems Jill Stein will.

This is interesting to me because it will not benefit the Green Party one bit so I am guessing Jill Stein really believes the election was really rigged in some way and doing it out of a sense of fair play.

#2 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-24 02:45 AM | Reply

It's going to happen regardless of what Hillary thinks about it:

Jill Stein's Recount Effort Raises Millions In Just Hours

Within hours, Stein's fundraiser rapidly gained traction. Just after 11 p.m. EST, supporters had donated $1.9 million, then it climbed past $2 million before midnight. The goal was surpassed about eight hours after Stein's announcement was delivered over Facebook Live. Just before 3 a.m. EST, the fund surpassed $2.5 million. Stein's campaign originally set out to raise $2 million by Friday afternoon, in time to meet Wisconsin's Nov. 25 deadline and $1.1 million filing fee. But the candidate secured enough funds for all of Wisconsin's, Pennsylvania's and part of Michigan's filing fees before Thursday.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 05:06 AM | Reply

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 05:06 A

Yup it will now happen there will be a recount

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-24 05:51 AM | Reply

If this flips the election Danni's head might explode. She would be forced to thank Stein voters not hate them.

#5 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-24 06:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"She would be forced to thank Stein voters not hate them."

My head will be fine, I never feared a Jill Stein Presidency. She seems to be a smart and decent person, I only feared that her candidacy would enable a Trump Presidency, apparently now, she gets it. I applaud her because by her requesting the recounts, instead of Hillary, it diminishes the "sore loser" aspect of the request. I wish Gary Johnson would join her. The opposition candidates (to Trump) should all be doing everything they can to prevent the coming catastrophe of his Presidency.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-24 08:15 AM | Reply

A recount should happen anywhere there are possible irregularities or the vote is close.

I'm no fan of Stein but I'm glad she is doing this.

The issue isn't just about who wins in a state. It's about protecting the vote from hacking. That's more important now than ever because of Russian hackers interfering in the election by attacking political groups and leaking documents. Their hackers could have found vulnerabilities in our underfunded, inadequately protected voting system also.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-24 09:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rcade, if there was hacking, it's more likely connected to the manufacturers and programmers of the non-trail-leaving voting machines.

Here's a good article by one of the scientists who's still skeptical, but wants an investigation: Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Go for it. Thank you Jill.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-24 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Go Fund Me is up to $4.3 million almost to its goal of $4.5 million. This could well happen.

#10 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2016-11-24 09:11 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7 I agree. And I will personally apologize to all Stein voters if the recount is pursued. I did think she was the best candidate out of the 4 left on the ballot, but I knew only Hillary could have stopped Trump. I will eat crow if it ends up Stein stops trump. I will happily eat crow.

#11 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-24 11:01 PM | Reply

What's this? Ah, third parties doing all the heavy lifting for a Clinton, again. You'd think by now their sycophants would be worshipping at the altar of third parties, who are the only reason Clintons stood a chance then and now.

#12 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 01:01 AM | Reply

I was certain Trump would quit long before he got himself into the mess in which he now exists, so my opinion is weak.

That said, I also doubt there is much chance any recounts will make any difference. It's a strange world.

When a proud Texan like Babbles gloats about a Hollywood celebrity born and raised in New York City winning a presidential election, I kinda lose my perspective.

We live in interesting times.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-25 01:51 AM | Reply

"What's this? Ah, third parties doing all the heavy lifting for a Clinton, again. You'd think by now their sycophants would be worshipping at the altar of third parties, who are the only reason Clintons stood a chance then and now."

If third parties hadn't pulled votes from Clinton she'd be the President elect right now. I think Stein realizes the disaster her ego created for the country and is now trying her best to undo what she did.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 07:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#14 | Posted by danni
Like Ross Perot?

#15 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 08:07 AM | Reply

If third parties hadn't pulled votes from Clinton she'd be the President elect right now. I think Stein realizes the disaster her ego created for the country and is now trying her best to undo what she did.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 07:58 AM | Re

The fact that a huge majority of Jill Stein voters said hell no we wouldnt vote for hillary if Jill Stein wasn't running means not a God Damn thing to you does it.

second thing if hillary got all of Jill Stein votes hillary still would of lost

#16 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-25 08:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The fact that a huge majority of Jill Stein voters said hell no we wouldnt vote for hillary if Jill Stein wasn't running means not a God Damn thing to you does it."

It means, hello President Trump! Thanks a heap! Now convince us that a President Trump is a better outcome than a President Hillary Clinton. Good luck with that. Jeff Sessions agrees with you.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 08:36 AM | Reply

"Washington (CNN)Neither Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson nor the Green Party's Jill Stein managed to make a dent in the Electoral College, but they did post a significant enough showing in several states arguably to help elect Donald Trump.

Trump won 290 Electoral College votes to 232 for Hillary Clinton, as of Wednesday evening, with Clinton topping him in the popular vote. But had the Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests -- Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) -- Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency."

www.cnn.com

#18 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 08:38 AM | Reply

I also doubt there is much chance any recounts will make any difference. -- #13 | Posted by REDIAL

The computer scientists arguing for the recount don't think it will overturn the current results, either (See Tony's link in #8.)

They do think we should be using more secure systems for our elections and checking the insecure systems we have in place. In light of the Russians' hack of the Ukranian elections and their efforts to influence this election through e-mail hacking/leaks, it seems like the least we should be doing.

#19 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-25 08:43 AM | Reply

When our election results are so totally in doubt and a radical like Trump is allowed to take office we end up with a country that doesn't have the support of its citizens. Sorry, but most of our nation is not as ignorant as are the majority of the Russian people who blindly support a totally corrupt dictator. We will either fix our election systems or we will find ourselves in revolution.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 08:57 AM | Reply

Hey Danni if it were not for Ross Perot Bill Clinton would never had been President and you would not even know who Hillary is.

#21 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 08:57 AM | Reply

"What if Spartacus had a piper cub?" (in tribute to H.)

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 09:00 AM | Reply

"if it were not for Ross Perot Bill Clinton would never had been President"

False. Perot drew votes from both sides, relatively equally.

www.leinsdorf.com

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-25 09:09 AM | Reply

It's like every narrative by the Right is wrong.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 09:27 AM | Reply

Results of the 1992 election
presidential candidate political party popular votes
Bill Clinton Democratic 44,909,889
George Bush Republican 39,104,545
Ross Perot Independent 19,742,267
Andre V. Marrou Libertarian 291,628

Your article Danforth is an opinion.
Unless you personally know how and why those Perot voters voted.

#25 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 10:02 AM | Reply

If third parties hadn't pulled votes from Clinton she'd be the President elect right now. I think Stein realizes the disaster her ego created for the country and is now trying her best to undo what she did.
#14 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 07:58 AM
---

Yeah, losing voters in some states who once voted Obama had nothing to do with it. (lmao)

#26 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 10:36 AM | Reply

***"If third parties hadn't pulled votes from Clinton she'd be the President elect right now."*** Danni

This is of course assuming all of the Stein voters and a large majority of Johnson voters would have otherwise voted for Clinton. I dare say the majority of Johnson voters, including myself, would have normally voted Republican (or stayed home). Johnson received 3-4x as many votes as Stein BTW.

#27 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is of course assuming all of the Stein voters and a large majority of Johnson voters would have otherwise voted for Clinton. I dare say the majority of Johnson voters, including myself, would have normally voted Republican (or stayed home). Johnson received 3-4x as many votes as Stein BTW.
#27 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 10:40 AM
---

I think it's hilarious that anyone is dumb enough to think a Republican who revolts and votes third party, who would normally vote for the Republican candidate, somehow "helped Trump." lol Good times.

#28 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 10:44 AM | Reply

I don't know that it's because they are dumb, I just think they're still moving through the stages of grief. Right now they are still in denial, so saying things like "If third parties hadn't pulled votes from Clinton she'd be the President elect right now" actually makes sense to them.

#29 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 11:01 AM | Reply

#29 - it's accurate in some states, like Michigan I think. Given the horrors of the EC system, that view can't be summarily dismissed.

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 11:12 AM | Reply

(To be clear, the concept of 3rd party voting, not the scenario laid out by LoD in #28)

#31 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 11:13 AM | Reply

***"#29 - it's accurate in some states, like Michigan I think. Given the horrors of the EC system, that view can't be summarily dismissed."*** YAV

By horrors, do you mean the EC not going the way you hoped? Based on the discrepancy between the popular vote and the EC? Well, if were speculating here, what if the vast majority of those Johnson voters voted Trump (if Johnson wasn't in the race)? There goes you PV discrepancy... In that scenario, the EC was right on (as if it wasn't correct as is).

#32 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 12:06 PM | Reply

By horrors, do you mean the EC not going the way you hoped?

No.

Based on your vehemence, I suspect I'm correct in assuming you're one of those butt-hurt ungracious "winners?"
I find your type ... amusing.

#33 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 12:12 PM | Reply

This is of course assuming all of the Stein voters and a large majority of Johnson voters would have otherwise voted for Clinton. I dare say the majority of Johnson voters, including myself, would have normally voted Republican (or stayed home). Johnson received 3-4x as many votes as Stein BTW.

#27 | POSTED BY JWIL72 AT 2016-11-25 10:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG

The thing about the Libertarian party is yes.. a lot who otherwise would vote Clinton decided to vote Johnson. Lots of otherwise left wing people are willing to get in bed with those monsters because they want to legalize marijuana.

#34 | Posted by soheifox at 2016-11-25 12:38 PM | Reply

Special Agent Fox is on the case, those damn pot smokers will pay.

#35 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 01:05 PM | Reply

SO after all the talk demanding that trump say he would accept the election. Democrats wont.

Democrats are not only Hippocratic's that have no core values the values change depending who is in office. One day you cant criticize something but another its ok. Democrats only believe in being in power and will be against anything that stops them once they are in power all there opinions change.
Once they are out of power they start doing all the things they criticized as being wrong before. Democrats are the true deplorable s because they have no core values of whats right and wrong.

#36 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-25 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"One day you cant criticize something but another its ok."

Oh, please.

Trump destroyed emails under subpoena.

Trump's Foundation admitted to self-dealing.

Trump has said as President, conflict of interest laws don't apply to him.

HRC was hammered on emails, her Foundation, and conflicts-of-interest. Trump gets a pass on these, and everything else from his --------.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-25 01:20 PM | Reply

Re-counts are good if a vote is close. They bolster confidence in an outcome.

#38 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-11-25 01:33 PM | Reply

These are the very same states that the hillary supporters want hillary to challenge the election results, but it does not look like hillary will do it so it seems Jill Stein will.

This is interesting to me because it will not benefit the Green Party one bit so I am guessing Jill Stein really believes the election was really rigged in some way and doing it out of a sense of fair play.

#2 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-24 02:45 AM | Reply

Imagine that. A politician spending time to do something that she believes is best for the country when neither personal gain nor party politics are a factor. Kind of sad that such behavior is "interesting" in that this is not how Republicans and Democrats behave. Ever.

I don't have to agree with a leader 100% of the time if I can at least trust her motives. I'll "waste my vote" towards that end 100% of the time.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-25 01:44 PM | Reply

Imagine that. A politician spending time to do something that she believes is best for the country when neither personal gain nor party politics are a factor. Kind of sad that such behavior is "interesting" in that this is not how Republicans and Democrats behave. Ever.

I don't have to agree with a leader 100% of the time if I can at least trust her motives. I'll "waste my vote" towards that end 100% of the time.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-25 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag

It just goes to show me my vote for Jill Stein was the correct one for me and country.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 01:48 PM | Reply

and everything else from his --------.

Myrmidons?

#41 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 01:59 PM | Reply

***"No.
Based on your vehemence, I suspect I'm correct in assuming you're one of those butt-hurt ungracious "winners?"
I find your type ... amusing."*** YAV

WTF are you talking about? Vehemence? Butt-hurt winner? I was making some pretty simple observations and positing a fairly reasonable scenario and this is your response? You're either having trouble keeping up or you're the butt-hurt looser (or both). Either way, put away the keyboard and let the adults talk.

#42 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 05:08 PM | Reply

***"The thing about the Libertarian party is yes.. a lot who otherwise would vote Clinton decided to vote Johnson. Lots of otherwise left wing people are willing to get in bed with those monsters because they want to legalize marijuana."***

So you're saying X number of people (hundreds of thousands, millions?) voted for someone who could not possibly win because he supports legalizing pot? They did this instead of voting for the person who, while she hasn't come out in favor of pot that I know of, would have probably continued to not enforce federal law, allowing more and more states to legalize (which I'm actually all for)? Doesn't make sense.

#43 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 05:18 PM | Reply

#42 - I said nothing political, though. i just looked at thing statistically and made an observation. You inferred all kinds of political crap from it which wasn't there, and when challenged you came back with that? And you tell me to let the adults talk?

As I said - ... amusing! ROFL!

#44 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 05:45 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by Danforth
Get back on topic.
Results of the 1992 election
presidential candidate political party popular votes
Bill Clinton Democratic 44,909,889
George Bush Republican 39,104,545
Ross Perot Independent 19,742,267
Andre V. Marrou Libertarian 291,628
It is your belief is 6,500,000 + of Perot voters would of voted fr Clinton?

#45 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-25 08:12 PM | Reply

#44 You: The EC is a horror (no, definitely not because your candidate won the PV and the other won the EC, couldn't be)! 3rd party voters in Michigan! = Not political.
Me: Assuming all or even a strong majority of Stein AND Johnson voters would have otherwise voted for Hillary is wrong. The majority of Johnson voters otherwise would have voted republican. Could have affected PV too, who knows! = political
Make sense to you? Probably not. Hint; It's all supposition based on political leanings. Honestly, did you vote for Johnson hoping for some legal weed?

#46 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 08:27 PM | Reply

The Electoral College meets to vote on Dec. 19. The Stein camp had better hurry and resolve this before then!

And, what happens if it turns out that hacking in thise 3 states made the difference and cost HRC the election?

#47 | Posted by Augustine at 2016-11-25 08:50 PM | Reply

"The Electoral College meets to vote on Dec. 19. The Stein camp had better hurry and resolve this before then!"

Stein's obligation has been to meet the deadlines for calling for the recount. She's met that obligation in two of the three states in question. We'll know by Monday if she's met the deadline for the third. Beyond that it's the states' obligation to conduct the recount.

#48 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2016-11-25 09:04 PM | Reply

#46 - You're still quite emotional. You can tell because you had to paraphrase me and make up positions and assign them to me. Oh, and tons of ad hominem. I assume just for sport?

Good news? Still slightly amusing.
Bad news? Repetitious, unimaginative, trite, sarcasm misses the mark.

1.5 stars out of 5.

#49 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-25 10:49 PM | Reply

#49 You bore me...

#50 | Posted by jwil72 at 2016-11-25 11:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Kind of sad that such behavior is "interesting" in that this is not how Republicans and Democrats behave. Ever.

#39 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2016-11-25 01:44 PM | REPLY

Dems do it 100 percent of the time, which is what cost them this election.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-26 02:11 AM | Reply

Dems do it 100 percent of the time, which is what cost them this election.
#51 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2016-11-26 02:11 AM

Lol.

#52 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 05:46 AM | Reply

SHills should be on their knees thanking Jill Stein for this last hope she has given them.

#53 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 05:47 AM | Reply

Why?
There's no point in this.
All Stein's doing is perpetuating the belief that our elections aren't secure.
That plays right into Russia's hands.

#54 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 07:37 AM | Reply

#54

Almost nobody believes our elections are secure anymore. How does double checking make that worse?

#55 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 07:58 AM | Reply

Also, funny disconnect in the sentiment that our elections are secure while maintaining the belief that Russia's hands are in it. In other words, you don't believe they're secure either.

Best to just double check.

#56 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:00 AM | Reply

I've held Russia's played quite a role in our elections - in the same way they played a role in Brexit. Their strategy hasn't changed, only their tactics have been updated. Their biggest weapon is disinformation/information. Russia's goal is to undermine the belief in Democracy and elections. All you have to do is look at their actions, in country after country. The most recent being Ukraine, UK and now us. None of this is "magic" or particularly well hidden. It's not even secret. It's just "denied."

There was no vote flipping/changing/hacking that happened by Russia or anyone else.

The two points are not the same.

#57 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 08:07 AM | Reply

Ok, but how does a recount undermine... well anything? If we're not 100% sure the votes weren't tampered with, how does double checking lead to less certainty and more division?

#58 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:12 AM | Reply

Also, it's still Friday night in the LOD house, so if I'm missing an obvious point, just tell me to ---- off and go to bed already.

#59 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:13 AM | Reply

That's exactly the point - and what benefits Russia.

For instance, where'd you get the idea that the votes were tampered with?

They weren't. But the damage is you don't trust the election process anymore. You're not alone. By far.

The "fundraising" for the recount reinforces the idea that our elections are not secure. Look at the "sales collateral" for raising the money. What message does that reinforce?

The results at the end will be nothing found, but that won't be what's remembered.

(may I please be wrong.)

#60 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 08:18 AM | Reply

Almost nobody believes our elections are secure anymore. How does double checking make that worse?

#55 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

No, the biggest threat to election security are the hoards of illegal voters showing up on election day to impersonate other voters - one person at a time - to swing elections toward the godless Democrats.

The Republican vendors and owners of the non-trail-leaving voting machines and their proprietary software would never try to flip the actual tallies of legal voters in order to alter results even though it's been repeatedly proven such tampering is easily accomplished and without investigation, impossible to detect:

In 2003, an employee at Diebold mistakenly left 40,000 files containing code for the Diebold AccuVote TS, one of the most widely used machines on the market, on a publically viewable website. The computer scientists moved in, and one of the early and formative papers was published on the subject, co-authored by Wallach and led by Johns Hopkins' Avi Rubin. Its findings were devastating: The machine's smartcards could be jerry-rigged to vote more than once; poor cryptography left the voting records file easy to manipulate; and poor safeguards meant that a "malevolent developer" -- an employee inside the company, perhaps -- could reorder the ballot definition files, changing which candidates received votes.

The encryption key, F2654hD4, could be found in the code essentially in plain view; all Diebold machines responded to it. (Rubin later remarked that he would flunk any undergrad who wrote such poor code.) "We read the code, and found really, really bad problems," Wallach tells me, sitting at his Houston dining table. He catches himself. "Actually, let me change that," he says. "We found unacceptable problems." Diebold dismissed the report, responding that the code was obsolete, and the study's findings thusly moot. But the 2003 report catalyzed a small movement: In CompSci departments across the country, vote hacking became a small, insular civic code of honor. Felten's group at Princeton led the pack, producing some of the most important papers throughout the 2000s. www.dailywire.com

But of course, this is impossible, right?

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 08:20 AM | Reply

#59 - Given Friday is over for the entire planet, can I assume that "it's still Friday night" means "Friday" has spilled well into Saturday? LOL!

#62 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 08:22 AM | Reply

For instance, where'd you get the idea that the votes were tampered with?
They weren't.
#60 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2016-11-26 08:18 AM

I don't think they were. Nate Silver almost instantaneously came out with an analysis that debunks the idea as soon as it came out. I guess i just don't see the harm in making sure, either. I'd be more than willing to eat crow on all of my "Bernie could've won posts" if by some chance cheating was discovered and the election flipped, though I don't think that's likely.

#63 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:50 AM | Reply

But of course, this is impossible, right?
#61 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2016-11-26 08:20 AM

I'm arguing in favor of a recount, so I don't know why this was directed at me, --------.

#64 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:53 AM | Reply

#62

Yes! Damnit. In my defense, we have a very young new puppy in the house who still needs let out every couple hours, and still cries when I just turn a corner. My sleep rotation is ------.

#65 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 08:56 AM | Reply

#63 - maybe you're right. It's not going to change anyone's mind, I bet. Look at the GOP war on non-existent in person voter fraud. Doesn't happen, and no one will admit it or stop the insanity of making voters jump through hoops to get to vote. Now it's gotten so bad you can lose your drivers license if you can't provide enough documentation to satisfy rather insane requirements.

#66 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 08:58 AM | Reply

#65 - nice! Congrats, LoD!

#67 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 08:59 AM | Reply

I'm arguing in favor of a recount, so I don't know why this was directed at me, --------.

I'm not dumb enough to mistake that my comments were SUPPORTIVE of your comments and recognize that the question was directed to those unlike us.

Good morning, sunshine. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

#68 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 08:59 AM | Reply

Good morning, sunshine. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
#68 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2016-11-26 08:59 AM

Wake up? Lol, I wish.

My bad if I got your comment wrong.

#69 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 09:02 AM | Reply

NP. It's all good in the neighborhood.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:04 AM | Reply

#67

We have a baby on the way too... so puppy plus baby... timing wasn't exactly on point, this house is going to be nuts for awhile. I'll try to keep the late incoherence from surpassing previous levels.

#71 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 09:09 AM | Reply

Congrats too! Life will never be the same, lol.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 - "nuts" is another way of saying "filled with life" - and that's a good thing :)

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 09:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary joins the recounting..
www.cnn.com

#74 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 01:13 PM | Reply

Hillary joins the recounting..
www.cnn.com

Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 01:13 PM | Reply

Funny she is riding the coattails of Jill Stein. Quite typical if you ask me.

#75 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-26 01:19 PM | Reply

Dems do it 100 percent of the time, which is what cost them this election.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-26 02:11 AM | Reply:

It is as if people like this were designed in a lab for the specific purpose of cheerleading the race to the bottom.

#76 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-26 01:40 PM | Reply

From your own link, Andrea:

Marc Elias, the [Clinton] campaign's counsel, said the campaign's own investigation has not uncovered any evidence of hacking of voting systems.
This is very different from Trump's pre-election insistence that everything was rigged against him.

#77 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-26 01:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort