Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Never argued it wasn't also for the betterment of democracy. I said that I "can see that."
Regardless of her intentions and motives, it is a positive for the Green Party. Unless the excess cash somehow backfires.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New vote count in Wisconsin and Michigan?
- Thread starter Shrew
- Start date
Never argued it wasn't also for the betterment of democracy. I said that I "can see that."
Regardless of her intentions and motives, it is a positive for the Green Party. Unless the excess cash somehow backfires.
Oh don't get me wrong, I see what your saying. Reminds me though when people argue doing things for you family is doing things really for the self. May or may not be true, but debateable.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I see a significant change of tone, good for you.
Just a few short weeks ago, what was called dangerous is now widely accepted so long as it's Jill not accepting the results. It is now widely accepted that there is a possibility for corruption, as long as it's not the Donald calling it that.
Progress
I don't think I have changed my tone at all. I still think the idea of masses of people voting twice, or voting where they are not allowed to is ridiculous. But that is not what we are talking about. It is much easier and more effective to have someone manipulate the numbers in some way than to actually have people cast fraudulent votes. I still think having masses of volunteers from Trump's campaign going around checking out other polling places was a dangerous and illegal idea, and I am glad it didn't happen. And I still think voter suppression is a much bigger problem than voter fraud.I see a significant change of tone, good for you.
Just a few short weeks ago, what was called dangerous is now widely accepted so long as it's Jill not accepting the results. It is now widely accepted that there is a possibility for corruption, as long as it's not the Donald calling it that.
Progress
If you think my tone has changed, you are misreading my tone, or you misread my tone before. And you can kiss my toned ***.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Keep up the consistency then
. Funny on the last line
. You're okay my friend.
I think you've been propositioned.Keep up the consistency then
Funny on the last line
(He never took such an interest in me.)
Maybe the real issue is grassroots feeling guilty for taking democrat votes. Hard to say.
No. That is not what is happening.
What happened then was a candidate threatening to fight the system if he didn't win. That is not at all the same as someone who is not, and never really was, a contender wanting to verify some really suspicious results. There is no danger to "democracy". We aren't one.
There's a whole thread about that subject.
The question is, are we even a republic? If it turns out that the election was rigged that really matters. If not, then all the better.
Making this out to be a partisan thing says more about the claimants than Stein or Clinton. Anybody who wasn't surprised by the results in those states wasn't paying attention to the campaign. That's not proof of anything, but it bears looking into.
If Rev thinks Minnesota results are also suspicious they can be looked into as well.
Tom
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I didn't see that threat. Must have been just stating they may not accept the results and would want a recount. As the results aren't being accepted currently in 3 states. Candidate and their popularity is irrelevant. Results not accepted are results not accepted. Wanting a recount is wanting a recount.
I agree, the US isn't a democracy. But many claimed the danger towards democracy and integrity behind not accepting results. You're not one of them, great to hear.
I'm not arguing for or against a recount, by all means if someone wants it go for it. Doesn't really matter in my opinion. Who is to say the 2nd results are more accurate or a superior ruling than the first? There will just be a counter suit filed for a 3rd recount if the state shifts. What will happen if the president elect is somehow overturned is a bunch of counter suits, more states involved and who knows the cost and lengths.
What is suspicious with this? More legitimate suspicions have been raised and laughed at/condemned, whereas those same laughers/condemners are now using any tiny means possible for justification. I don't mind the suspicions, I have no trust in humans or what length certain people are willing go to for what they want. Whether you're part of it or not, the hypocrisy gets very old though. It's very partisan to many, hiding and cowarding behind any little excuse doesn't change that. We all know what many people are hoping and wishing for.
Last edited:
Trump made it in a debate and then doubled down a couple times. He might not accept the results if he didn't win. That is quite different from a third party wanting to verify some suspicious results.
Tom
Yes, voting systems which can stand up to scrutiny. Even those states can't change the electoral far as I know.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
In your opinion, what would be different from a party wanting to verify some suspicious results had they been different vs another party wanting to verify some suspicious results?
Nothing in my opinion. The results aren't accepted. If they were accepted, there would be no filing. You are even indirectly saying they aren't accepted due to "suspicion."
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Pretty much. If the recount is off by an amount that would change the election, those who did the initial counting need remedial math. Since most are done by computer now, this should be a non-issue.
One party is planning to take office on the basis of the results and one isn't and never was.
That's the main difference.
The various Clinton conspiracy theories are what could use a bit of support. Something more substantial than partisanship.
As @Revoltingest pointed out, the Green party is hardly on the Democrats side.
Tom
Are Trump supporters even capable of seeing this from a non-partisan perspective?Last I recall, they were heckling Trump about accepting the election results. After the election swung in his favor, all of a sudden the hecklers don't want to accept the results, and they demand a recount.
Tom
There are problems with absentee ballots, which often must be analyzed for
intent, & then re-created on new ballots, which are then counted. This is a big
California problem, where they have food stains all over many of them. Really
That all takes a lot of time.
So the Dems & Greens want a recount only in states where the vote could
possibly go from Trump to Hillary. If that happened, & only those states were
recounted, then this might be an election stolen from Trump. So instead, it'd
make sense to also recount any state where Trump might reverse things.
Would Dems even be capable of admitting if they did?
(One mischievous question deserves another, eh.)
I only say Stein isn't on Hillary's side regarding war.
The Greens might not see eye to eye with her.
Motivations aren't clear to me.
I was pretty sure the video was an irrelevant red herring.
But, for some reason, Clinton came up in a thread having little to do with her. The likelihood of changing the presidential election EC results are far less than tiny. And the Greens have said that is not the point.
But the possibility that the election really was rigged, and by Republican party supporters, suddenly doesn't seem very important to Trumps fans.
Tom