Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 26, 2016

Hillary Clinton's campaign on Saturday said that it would participate in a recount initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in Wisconsin. The campaign has taken a number of steps since election day to review election results and has not found "any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology," Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, wrote in a statement on Medium. The campaign had not planned to call for a recount, Elias wrote, but now that one is underway, it felt an obligation to participate.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides," Elias wrote. "If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well."

Comments

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

I'd prefer if it were done entirely by parties not associated with Trump or Clinton. The Clinton campaign had no problem conspiring with the DNC against Sanders, which means they can't be trusted not to cheat again. Their involvement could only make the results of these recounts as questionable as, if not more questionable than, the original result.

#1 | Posted by sully at 2016-11-26 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Their involvement could only make the results of these recounts as questionable....

I believe all "involvement" outside of each state's mandated process and personnel responsible for recounts is limited to observing the process without any type of control over it whatsoever. If Hillary hadn't "joined" the recount she wouldn't have had the right for her observers to monitor the process.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 02:34 PM | Reply

To quote Hillary This is "horrifying," [s]he is "talking down our democracy."

How about Nancy Pelosi: "just when you think you have seen it all from [Hillary Clinton], [s]he stoops to a new low with [her] contempt for the sanctity of our elections."

Or Barbara Boxer: "[Hillary's] suggestion that [s]he may not accept the results of this election shows what a danger [s]he poses to our country."

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-11-26 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

.... and here they were worried about whether on nor Trump would.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-26 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Anyone looking for vote fraud? Seems it's been found:

"after Wisconsin posted its voting totals, various internet users who looked at the numbers noticed the same discrepancy. Three precincts in Outagamie County were each claiming that more people had voted in the presidential race than had voted at all. That's not possible, of course. So after it became a minor online controversy, those precincts each revised their totals. The result: more than a thousand imaginary votes for Donald Trump came off the board from those three precincts alone, as first noted by Dan Solomon of Fast Company."

And just like that, more fake votes than all the in-person voter fraud ever prosecuted.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

".... and here they were worried about whether on nor Trump would."

And let me guess: you were fine with it when you thought DJT was going to do it, but are apoplectic at the thought of HRC doing it.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 03:28 PM | Reply

Hillary Clinton's campaign on Saturday said that it would participate

Gotta squeeze those last few paychecks from the campaign funds. Won't need 'em for the 2020 run.

#7 | Posted by Whizzo at 2016-11-26 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This election is over. It's been over. We're got to come together under a Trump presidency, and accept the election results, and move on. Let's stop the whining and Make America Great Again, guys! What do you say?

#8 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-11-26 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This election is over. It's been over. "

Are you kidding? DJT has already lost around 1,000 votes. Where's the outrage regarding fake Republican votes being discovered?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 03:54 PM | Reply

"more than a thousand imaginary votes for Donald Trump came off the board"

So will there be a thousand prosecutions for vote fraud, or is this yet another case of IOKIYAR?

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:03 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

When it was Sanders getting cheated the Hillary supporters were all "you're going to have anomalies, that doesn't mean its fraud"

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-26 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

BTW, Im fine with the recount. count away.

#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-26 04:05 PM | Reply

Are you kidding? DJT has already lost around 1,000 votes. Where's the outrage regarding fake Republican votes being discovered?

#9 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Game on. I'm going to agree with all the other anti-Establishmentarians if neither Stein nor Clinton immediately make this known with every waking breath. Here it is; real living, breathing, verifiable/verified election fraud! And it's precisely in direct benefit of the very candidate claiming the election would be rigged against him.

Maybe this is really just a fluke anomaly of some procedurally inept election officials, but obviously mistakes like these at such high parameters cannot be justified nor tolerated. Imaginary voters cannot usurp the will of us real ones. Even the most fervent righty would have to agree with that.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Maybe this is really just a fluke anomaly"

Disagree.

One is a fluke anomaly.
Two is a disturbing coincidence.
Three--in the same county--is a premeditated, conspiratorial fraud.

I can't wait until Jason Chaffetz investigates!!!

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:21 PM | Reply

1,000 in 3 precincts already?
And they "revised" the vote totals how? By making up a more "reasonable" number?

Trump only won Wisconsin by 22,000 votes IIRC correctly.
This could get interesting.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 04:22 PM | Reply

This election is over. It's been over. We're got to come together under a Trump presidency, and accept the election results, and move on.

I've stopped expecting integrity or consistency from righties on anything.

So long as it's their side doing it they'll justify and rationalize anything and everything, even stuff they've been bitching about for years.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 04:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"And they "revised" the vote totals how? By making up a more "reasonable" number?"

Leave it to Yav to cut through to the salient question.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:26 PM | Reply

"So long as it's their side doing it they'll justify and rationalize anything and everything, even stuff they've been bitching about for years."

Wha???

You mean charitable Foundations doing self-dealing is now okay?

You mean getting money from foreign countries is now okay?

You mean destroying emails is now okay?

More like IOKIYAR, writ Presidentially Yuuuuuuuuge.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:29 PM | Reply

.... and here they were worried about whether on nor Trump would.-- #4 | Posted by MSgt

Trump was calling the election rigged against him before the votes were cast. Clinton joined a recount that occurred ONLY after there were indications of election fraud, and her spokesman has made it clear that they don't think this will overturn the election. That's very different from Trump's stance.

#19 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-26 04:31 PM | Reply

I'm just amazed at the number of sore losers on this site. It sickens me that you can't accept the inevitable, like spoiled children. There will be No change in the election results, no matter how many times you click your ruby heels together, snowflakers. Embrace Donald Trump, with all of your hearts. He is reaching out to you.

#20 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-11-26 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"There will be No change in the election results"

You're probably right.

That said, where's your outrage at finding more fake votes than all the in-person voter fraud prosecutions in US history?

Tell you what...pretend it was overvotes for HRC, and she won a close election. Same reaction?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:49 PM | Reply

I'm just amazed at the number of sore losers on this site. It sickens me that you can't accept the inevitable, like spoiled children.

I'm amazed at the lack of integrity and consistency by the idiot rubes.

I guess that evens things out, doesn't it?

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 05:00 PM | Reply

#21

We have to have strict laws forcing registered voters to provide the proper state-approved ID in order to vote even if a citizen has spent their lifetime legally voting without such restrictions. And the proponents of such laws have never produced more than a gaggle of actual in-person voter impersonation cases, yet we find three precincts in Wisconsin admittedly reporting over a 1000 votes that didn't exist for only one specific electoral race in the favor of one specific candidate and they shrug their shoulders and say "Ooops?"

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"There will be No change in the election results"

Gee, all that worry about vote fraud in the campaign...all gone away? Just because the fraud was in your favor?

Amazing. Now, according to some, vote fraud doesn't matter unless it changes the election results.

Good to know for the future....

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If people truly want to make election tampering harder at every level of the process, we should demand a federal law (and state laws too) that trigger automatic recounts if vote totals are at or within 2% margins. It needs to be 2% because it guarantees at minimum a forensic accounting of close votes and their compilation. It's much harder to move percentage points of votes than it is decimal points of votes.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:12 PM | Reply

What Hillary campaign?
Sour grapes and WJC is
pissed, but Hillary has
been hurt in so many ways.

#26 | Posted by hobart at 2016-11-26 05:17 PM | Reply

"Sour grapes"

Pointing out vote fraud = sour grapes.

Again...good to know for the future.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 05:19 PM | Reply

Trump.... He is reaching out to you. -- #20 | Posted by cookfish

Cover your --------!

#28 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-26 05:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 6

#27

In the immortal words of the late Coach Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were!"

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 05:26 PM | Reply

We'll see if Dems figured out how to "adjust" the recount...

#30 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-11-26 06:03 PM | Reply

We'll see if Dems figured out how to "adjust" the recount...

Scott Walker's Republican government controls Wisconsin. Don't have faith in the process GA?

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 06:05 PM | Reply

We'll see if Dems figured out how to "adjust" the recount...

#30 | Posted by Greatamerican

So...if the election outcome is what you want it to be it's fair and correct.

If the election outcome isn't what you want it to be it's rigged and unfair.

Is that a fair assessment of your views?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 06:13 PM | Reply

Surprise, surprise, the Oracle has tweeted:

Donald Trump Calls Green Party's Wisconsin Recount Push A ‘Scam'

"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."

Actually, he released an actual written statement.

For that, I am sadly impressed simply because he's set his own bar so low.

#33 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 06:18 PM | Reply

We're going to have to watch, very carefully.
~DJT, before the election

Watching carefully is abusive.
~DJT, after the election

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 06:21 PM | Reply

Is that a fair assessment of your views?

#32 | POSTED BY JPW

It certainly was the Democrats and Hillarys views before the election, or don't you remember the outrage after Trump's answer?

#35 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 06:22 PM | Reply

Pointing out vote fraud = sour grapes.
Again...good to know for the future.

#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

So Trump was correct again......

Winning!

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It certainly was the Democrats and Hillarys views before the election, or don't you remember the outrage after Trump's answer?"

So basically, you're outraged now over what didn't outrage you when DJT did it.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 06:24 PM | Reply

"So Trump was correct again......"

Um...no, Republicans have been shown as hypocrites, again.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 06:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It certainly was the Democrats and Hillarys views before the election, or don't you remember the outrage after Trump's answer?

Spare me your childish deflections.

Either grow up and call both instances BS or say nothing at all.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 06:30 PM | Reply

Conflation Alert!!!

Before the election, Donald Trump made non-verifiable, non-specific claims that the election was "rigged" against him before the Election Day vote was undertaken.

Rich.

After the election, which ended with Wisconsin vote's total margin of preference being less than .5%, with over 1000 non-existent votes wrongly counted in favor of Trump that were included in the unofficial vote count coming from only 4 wards within one single county, then makes the pursuit of a recount of this particular election race a "scam" according to the candidate benefiting from the first disclosed error?

Priceless.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This cannot be emphasized enough!

What this means is that Trump's margin of victory in one WI county with fewer than 100,000 voters is now down by 1,500 votes, about 1.5% Dan Solomon
Anyone care to argue against the need for a full recount in Wisconsin or consider it a "scam" now when Trumps's announced margin of victory is less than .5% ?

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 08:18 PM | Reply

As this crime unfolds, we can expect Rethugs to destroy ballots to prevent complete disclosure, election reversal and criminal prosecution. They've illegally destroyed ballots before in Ohio.

#42 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-26 09:43 PM | Reply

Have all of the recounts you want.

Hillary's ankle-girth is an impeachable offense. She wouldn't last 3 days.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 01:12 AM | Reply

Have all of the recounts you want.

Hillary's ankle-girth is an impeachable offense. She wouldn't last 3 days.

So basically Repubs will be a bunch of sour pusses no matter what.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 01:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

So basically Repubs will be a bunch of sour pusses no matter what.

#44 | POSTED BY JPW

She has a wandering eye, among other things. I'd be willing to bet that Bill quit having sex with her when she performed Terrible Tonto on him. After that, he was done for life.

Even if she had actually won, these things alone should have required video replay to overturn the election results. "Sour pusses"..."Commonsense munchers"..."Pah.tay.toh/pah.tah.toh"..."etc"...

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 02:06 AM | Reply

Hillary is an unstable old hag. She hurls projectiles at people who are supposedly closest to her when things don't go her way. She has fat ankles...REALLY fat ankles. Currently she can't remain upright for more than 10 minutes without some kind of a prop. She has blood-pressure issues and appears uncertain on her feet far too often.

I don't think she is physically able to handle the rigors of the seat she is apparently seeking to steal.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 02:14 AM | Reply

Hitting the scotch tonight? LOL

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:31 AM | Reply

clinton supporters are calling for a recount...

#48 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2016-11-27 05:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm just amazed at the number of sore losers on this site."

How dare they expect a fair and accurate count of the votes? Who do they think they are? Americans?

#49 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-27 06:25 AM | Reply

"That said, where's your outrage at finding more fake votes than all the in-person voter fraud prosecutions in US history?
Tell you what...pretend it was overvotes for HRC, and she won a close election. Same reaction?

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-26 04:49 PM | REPLY"

One can not determine the level of voter fraud in any particular year by the number of prosecutions, anymore than one can determine the number of drug deals done in a location by the number of arrests for drug dealing. So please stop repeating your BS assertion, and face it you LOST and LOST, BIG TIME......HAHAHHAHHAHA

#50 | Posted by danv at 2016-11-27 06:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Will they still count the fraudulent votes?

#51 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-27 07:06 AM | Reply

Will they still count the fraudulent votes?

Of course not. They were removed from the official total released on 11/22.

One can not determine the level of voter fraud in any particular year by the number of prosecutions, anymore than one can determine the number of drug deals done in a location by the number of arrests for drug dealing.

No, but there are already 1126 votes removed from Trump's overall total in Wisconsin from just one county of 100,000 voters, amounting to 7% of that county's overall presidential vote total. The current margin of difference statewide between Trump and Hillary is less than 22,000 votes with around 5 million cast, a difference of less than .004.

Even pinheads can do the math from there and extrapolate what similar "mistakes" would mean if found in other locations in Wisconsin, but obviously such facts only matter to those of us actually trying to discern the real intent of the presidential voters in Wisconsin regardless of which candidate ends up with the most votes.

It's called election integrity, you know, the thing officially-issued voter ID's are meant to protect, right?

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 07:52 AM | Reply

"...but obviously such facts only matter to those of us actually trying to discern the real intent of the presidential voters in Wisconsin regardless of which candidate ends up with the most votes."

Horse Hockey! You and your little friends are only interested in overturning the vote PERIOD. My only question is how many turns do you want THIS time? It took three times with Gore before he quit. It ain't new in Wisconsin either, remember the Walker recall? Your motto is, "We win or we recount...multiple times."

"It's called election integrity, you know, the thing officially-issued voter ID's are meant to protect, right?"

Election integrity...to you and your ilk...is when your candidate wins, whatever it takes. Even if "someone has to die" like one of your stalwart protesters announced during a riot. You make me sick.

#53 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"remember the Walker recall? Your motto is, "We win or we recount"

A recall and a recount are two different things, done for two very different reasons.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#53

When you have to assign hysterical positions to someone that they have never taken, you've lost the argument before it's even begun.

The states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all allow for losing candidates to call for state-controlled recounts under specified conditions paid for by those so wanting said recounts. They are state laws, hence wholly legal. At present, that is the only thing being contemplated. Only someone who fears LOSING to a recount has anything to fear. If one is secure in the immutability of their announced victory, they realize another count isn't going to change the outcome and will only further legitimize their victory. This isn't a subjective endeavor, it's the simple objective recalculation and inspection of the ballots. It is in everyone's benefit to verify the accuracy of electoral results particularly when the margin of victory is microscopic in relation to the total of votes cast.

Now let's add on another factual caveat: The margin of difference in Wisconsin is less than .5% out of 5 million votes or around a 22,000 vote difference. One county has already posted and corrected 1126 votes that DID NOT EXIST which were counted in favor of only one candidate in one specific race. That candidate was Donald Trump and said phantom votes were called "a tabulation error." What sentient individual who has already been exposed to these facts would deem a complete recount as something unnecessary and whine about losing candidates exercising the very mechanisms the state gives them to satisfy that the compilation of votes was indeed tabulated accurately?

Obviously Jest....

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 09:22 AM | Reply

Two adult responses to JGA.
Let's see if he will pull his head out of his emotional hindquarters ("You make me sick" - really?) and this time, respond in kind.
Perhaps he just needs his coffee.

Oh - I see Null flagged JGA's post as "Newsworthy." How funny. Just the other day Null was asking why people thought he had changed. Supposedly everyone else has changed but Null.

#56 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:35 AM | Reply

You make me sick.

#53 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OMG. You're worried. Nice to have something in common with you, except that
I'm worried for all of us and your just worried Donald might lose Wisconsin.

I've always thught that conservatives and liberals shared certain core values. Until this election. I've had difficulty understanding why Trump supporters were arguing with the rest of us about basic things upon which we should agree.

Then it hit me. We liberals aren't dealing with conservatives any more. We're dealing with an animal that doesn't share ordinary American values, and whose concept of patriotism we find novel and alarming.

That would, among many other things, explain why none of you interesting people are not any longer concerned about hostile foreign intervention in our domestic politics. Or why you don't care about where Donald gets his money.

I've spent the morning reading what a Czech wrote about how to survive an authoritarian leader, and that leader's running dogs. He said one thing was to never visit websites like the DR again. Which was my first instinct after Donald was elected. Or should I say "elected"?

We've already had one regular denizen to the DR out himself as a literal fascist since the election, out of an apaprent sense of exhuberance.. I'm betting there are one or two more here. Genuibne fascists I mean.

Therefore, if an accurate count of the vote makes HRC president, I'm not going to bitch about that. No American would bitch about such accuracy. Those of you who are not really from here can all go to hell.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 09:44 AM | Reply

I notice that Donald is really bursting a vein over the possibility the election vote might have been rigged. I recall him telling his followers a few short weeks ago that, um, the Wisconsin vote might be rigged.

If you're not disturbed by such unashamed hypocrisy, then you may be a fascist.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If many are slow on the uptake, almost every single accusation of wrongdoing or malfeasance that Donald Trump has directed toward other people is actually true about himself.

It's called projection people and that is why he can honestly claim to be correct almost all the time. He knows that he already does everything he claims that others are doing. It's a no-lose proposition and it inoculates himself from when his own inevitable truths eventually catch up and are connected to him.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 09:56 AM | Reply

"One can not determine the level of voter fraud in any particular year by the number of prosecutions"

One can safely assume if it were ubiquitous, it would be prosecuted whenever possible.

In addition, in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent due to several logical factors:
1) It's waaaay too much risk for waaaaay too little reward. A felony conviction, a fine, and a year in jail per vote?!? Most states are won by many thousands of votes. The chance of one person altering the outcome is statistically microscopic.
2) Any multiple-person plan would yield multiple times the votes, of course, but in addition to #1, you've now created a weak-link conspiracy. As we've learned, you can't get three or more people into a conspiracy these days without one of them posting it on Facebook.
3. The actual methodology is painstakingly time-consuming. One guy I met thought you could just keep getting back in line, and vote again and again. In actuality, after you voted in your own jurisdiction, you'd have to go to a new precinct, get back in line, have a name and an address of a registered voter who (hopefully) hasn't voted yet, and pray everyone within earshot doesn't know that person. Just how many votes are you going to make on election day?

The concept there are millions of folks willing to do just that, particularly folks here illegally who know they'd be deported if caught, and all for a vote in (usually) a state long-before decided, is laughable on its face.

As this, and the vast majority of vote fraud cases in the past have proven, the folks casting the votes aren't the concern. The folks counting them are.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 09:57 AM | Reply

OMG. You're worried. Nice to have something in common with you, except that
I'm worried for all of us and you're just worried Donald might lose Wisconsin.

I've always thought that conservatives and liberals shared certain core values. Until this election. I've had difficulty understanding why Trump supporters were arguing with the rest of us about basic things upon which we should agree.

Then it hit me. We liberals aren't dealing with conservatives any more. We're dealing with an animal that doesn't share ordinary American values, and whose concept of patriotism we find novel and alarming.

That would, among many other things, explain why none of you interesting people are not any longer concerned about hostile foreign intervention in our domestic politics. Or why you don't care about where Donald gets his money.

I've spent the morning reading what a Czech wrote about how to survive an authoritarian leader, and that leader's running dogs. He said one thing was to never visit websites like the DR again. Which was my first instinct after Donald was elected. Or should I say "elected"?

We've already had one regular denizen to the DR out himself as a literal fascist since the election, out of an apparent sense of exhuberance.. I'm betting there are one or two more here. Genuine fascists I mean.

Therefore, if an accurate count of the vote makes HRC president, I'm not going to bitch about that. No American would bitch about such accuracy. Those of you who are not really from here can all go to hell.

(Thought I'd clean up my spelling a bit. Unlike some of you wannabe Brown Shirts, I'm concerned about accurancy. Oh, and that Czech also said watch for the moment when people taking advantage of open-carry also began wearing uniforms. But that part I already knew).

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 09:59 AM | Reply

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:08 AM | Reply | Flagged newsworthy by nullifidian, funny by YAV

Hilarious. The reason the moderator started publishing the identities of flaggers was part of a crackdown on derisive, fake funny flags. I initially opposed the policy, but now think it's great. Transparency is good.

#62 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-27 10:15 AM | Reply

Transparency is good.

#62 | Posted by nullifidian

What variety of cannabis induces extreme right-wing politics?

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:17 AM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2016-11-27 09:59 AM | FLAG: Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah

#64 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

We've already had one regular denizen to the DR out himself as a literal fascist since the election

Unlike the virtual fascist, Castro.....

#65 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 10:22 AM | Reply

The only thing funnier than the JGA post was Nulli's flagging that load of crap as "Newsworthy."

#66 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From what I am reading, and it makes sense, the point is to delay certification if three states until after 12/13. Thus making it so no one is over 270.

Allowing electors free to vote how ever they want.

Think of it as the Democrats SuperDelegates ..... Democrats don't want the peoples opinion in 3 states...

#67 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah

#64 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 10:21 AM | Reply | Fla

Hail Blah Victory Blah.

Seig Blah Heil Blah

Time to get behind your own American political traditions and institutions my friend.

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:28 AM | Reply

"Democrats don't want the peoples opinion in 3 states..."

Using that logic, Republicans don't want the people's opinion for all 50 states.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump=hypocrite: said everything was rigged before election,he should be fine with a recount now, he would be doing the same if situations was reversed.

Clinton=hypocrite: complained before election that Trump might ask for verification of votes, now she's doing what so complained about.

Stein="Useful Idiot" now I know where the 5 million came from, the DNC, so that they could say we didn't call for recount she did. Think she's hoping to get noticed for a 2020 run.

Everyone that complained before the election that Trump might do, is a hypocrite too.

Everyone that backed Trump and said it was ok that he said that that, is a hypocrite now.

So I'm fine with a recount, but prove the fraud first. If you don't prove fraud, then we don't no need a recount. The 1000 votes is only valid if it was actually fraud and not a typo, which does happen.

#70 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-27 11:37 AM | Reply

So I'm fine with a recount, but prove the fraud first. If you don't prove fraud, then we don't no need a recount. The 1000 votes is only valid if it was actually fraud and not a typo, which does happen.

The law doesn't care whether you're "fine with a recount" and there is no need to prove fraud in order to request one. It only takes one candidate to pony up the cash and the state law mandates a recount must take place.

And please stop conflating that Donald Trump claiming that the entire election was "rigged" against him and that it would be "stolen" exists in the same universe of Stein and Clinton asking for recounts after computer scientists have noticed anomalies in vote counts between counties in the same states that use different types of voting machines: One's without paper trails showing percentages higher totals for Trump than demographically-similar counties having paper back-up machines.

That is why you ask for a recount AFTER the voting, not before. Therein lies the universal difference between Trump's unsubstantiated claims and the evidence-based, wholly legal recounts likely to occur in the noted states. One is not the same as the other no matter how much you try to twist them in comparison.

#71 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 11:47 AM | Reply

"prove the fraud first."

What part of "more votes than ballots" did you miss?

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#72

They don't "think," they just spew whatever comes out of their minds at the time.

Coherence is an altered state Pinky is afraid to visit.

#73 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 12:02 PM | Reply

They are the same. An anomaly is just that, an anomaly. Most anomalies can't be explained, or found. Doesn't prove anything. Means your looking for nothing. Sorry your girls are hypocritical. No need to get upset. So is Trump. My being fine with the recount means nothing. It being legal means nothing also, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I'm more interested in if they can actually prove something. Then it's important.

#74 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-27 12:05 PM | Reply

I didn't miss it Danforth. Explain how it happened then we have something to talk about. Otherwise I'll caulk it up to someone not checking their work before entering the number. You know like a typo.

#75 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-27 12:13 PM | Reply

"Explain how it happened then we have something to talk about."

Sorry, dude. "How it happened" should be the subject of the investigation.

"Otherwise I'll caulk it up to someone not checking their work before entering the number."

Three times? In three different precincts, all in the same county?!? My, you're gullible.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 12:21 PM | Reply

I wonder if in the recount, whether they find any fraudulent votes, and, of so, who they cast for?

#77 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-27 12:50 PM | Reply

and face it you LOST and LOST, BIG TIME......HAHAHHAHHAHA

Ummmm no.

McCain and Romney lost big time.

Hillary did not.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:16 PM | Reply

Election integrity...to you and your ilk...is when your candidate wins, whatever it takes. Even if "someone has to die" like one of your stalwart protesters announced during a riot. You make me sick.

#53 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Take a long look in a mirror, dumbass.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:18 PM | Reply

"Democrats don't want the peoples opinion in 3 states..."

Using that logic, Republicans don't want the people's opinion for all 50 states.

#69 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah, it's funny how "the people" always tend to be a non-existent homogeneous group that agrees with them.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:25 PM | Reply

I remember the day before the election.

Everyone was like, "OMG! We are so glad this is over and we can take a break from politics."

The Trump won.

Everyone was like, "OMG! Electoral votes shouldn't count! Let's drag this whole thing out forever!!"

Well.

Maybe 2016 is the year we don't get a new SCOTUS Justice. Or a new president.

Democracy is dead.

#81 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-27 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gullible is not realizing that one county official typed the wrong number for three districts in the ONE county.

Then when I say prove something, saying it should be investigated, because you don't know. Wow really who would have thought. I don't know if you noticed but we both think it should be investigated. So I have no clue why your attacking that statment.

Unless, since your so offended by what I said. I can assume your one of the hypocrite's that I pointed out?

#82 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2016-11-27 03:42 PM | Reply

Gullible is thinking that one county official typed the wrong number for three districts in the ONE county only for the same candidate without making errors anywhere else and believing that it was an accident.

Stupid is thinking that being gullible about that means no recount and verification should take place.

#83 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 06:00 PM | Reply

Accurately counting the votes should transcend partisan politics.

#84 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-28 09:27 AM | Reply

Accurately counting the votes should transcend partisan politics.

#84 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2016-11-28 09:27 AM | FLAG: MMMMMMM IN THEORY
Ya see... the fruits of this victory are not that sweet. Facts are this... Trumpling lost the popular vote to a woman... the first time in US history this has ever happened to a man running for that office.

No matter what... Hillary's legend has thus far outshone his even though he has the office. She truly had nothing to lose... he on the other hand has to nothing short of heal the sick and raise the dead... because everything else he can do as preznit has already been done better by others before him.

Thus far he has failed to sprout a pair of nuggets and say... recount?... sure why not...

His midnight tweets and posturing make him look more sissified than his little hands. I wonder how many political leaders are going to goad him for fun.

Good luck with that wall thingie.

#85 | Posted by Rightistrite at 2016-11-28 11:09 AM | Reply

She went on to say, "That's not the way our democracy works. We've been around 240 years. We've had free and fair elections and we've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you're whining before the game is even finished it just shows you're not even up to doing the job. "

She added, "And let's be clear about what he's saying and what he means. He's denigrating -- he's talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.

Read more: dailycaller.com

#86 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-28 01:23 PM | Reply

#86 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2016-11-28 01:23 PM | REPLY |FLAG: PATHETIC

Face it FISHFLAKE your president is a political gelding.. or capon. Losing the popular vote in a world that questions how we legitimize the electoral college did him no favors. It lost it for Bushling... hence he could not garner the support he needed for the war in Iraq. Everyone knows what a crybaby Trumphole is...

Good luck with that wall thingie.

#87 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2016-11-28 01:46 PM | Reply

#87 Um Trump won and Clinton lost, deal with it. Get some play doh or coloring books, go to a safe room and cry with your little buddies, but sometime you're going to have to put on some big boy pants and move on. Being butt hurt over the country wide butt kicking the left took is not an occupation, you will need to find something else to do while you are waiting for your monthly check. One warning though, your Obama phone only has about a month and a half of life left so you may want to look into a Jitterbug.

#88 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-28 04:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

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