Election Recounts

JDJacket said:

It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Click to expand...

Can we not do this. "You don't live here why do you care?" isn't a reasonable response at all when it comes to an intellectual discussion nor does one's location invalidate their opinion.

Recounts should always be pursued. The process isn't being used to its fullest if they aren't pursued.

JDJacket said:

It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Click to expand...

If you've been actively paying attention to what this country has done the past 10 years, you know damn well that what the United States does, both domestically and internationally, have a global impact. The US has the world's largest economy, the most funded military, is a crucial player in NATO and the UN, and actively inserts itself in the affairs of other countries. The Great Recession had a global impact, and the first and biggest domino to fall in that was the US economy.

Getting an ID can be a challenge if you're living paycheck to paycheck and have no means to do any of the following at the same time:

1. Get enough time off work to get to the DMV while it's open. (that's potentially a day's wages you won't be earning)
2. Be able to afford to drive to the DMV or otherwise get a ride there ($20 more gone to pay your friend/family member/acquaintance for the ride there!)
3. Afford the $15+ to get the ID. Taking my state for example, Minnesota, one costs $19.25 unless you are over 65 ($16.25 if you are), are disabled mentally or physically or have a qualified mental illness ($0.50 in the case of the latter 3). (and that's another $20 gone!)


Quite a number of people without current IDs live paycheck to paycheck, and I've just outlined their struggle with affording a replacement.

But this is probably delving far enough into another topic that it would merit its own thread rather than dominating a thread about election recounts.

Esper said:

Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

Click to expand...

All elections without question. The easiest place to push for recounts being mandatory would probably be at the state level, though. A lot of states are already partway there with their percentage point based auto-recount thresholds as it stands. Wouldn't be too difficult in many states to convince expanding recounts.

JDJacket said:

wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Click to expand...

Ivysaur lives in a NATO country, and is part of the EU. I live in a NATO country (the one you guys drag into the majority of your international messes) and am currently still part of the EU. We, and everyone in our respective countries, and our neighboring countries, are directly effected by the US. It would be insane for us not to worry about it.

Esper said:

Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

It's important for our peace of mind to know that there isn't any rigging or hacking of elections. Especially in close races. And also with electronic voting machines, which practically invite election fraud. Of course if we didn't make the election process so difficult in the first place it might not be as necessary. Ivysaur's point is well taken. If you make it easy for people to get IDs then it's not a burden to ask for ID.

And yeah, lots of people don't have IDs because they don't need them. Think of people in cities who don't drive. Think of elderly people who haven't renewed a license in years. Think of young, poor, overworked people who don't can't afford to take a day off of work to stand in line. Red states have closed many DMVs in rural/poor/black areas so getting an ID is made more difficult for them as a result. It's the same tactic used in state government by people against abortion. Restrict access as much as you can without making it outright unobtainable and then say "if you really wanted it you could get it."

Also, election day should be on the weekend or be a holiday. It's frickin important and if we really thought that people should vote then we'd not make it as hard as it is. I'm not saying it's arduous. Obviously plenty of people can and do vote, but you look at places around the country where people are waiting 3, 4, 5 hours in line and you've got a systemic attempt to disenfranchise voters.

Click to expand...

gimmepie said:

Can we not do this. "You don't live here why do you care?" isn't a reasonable response at all when it comes to an intellectual discussion nor does one's location invalidate their opinion.

Click to expand...

Hands said:

Ivysaur lives in a NATO country, and is part of the EU. I live in a NATO country (the one you guys drag into the majority of your international messes) and am currently still part of the EU. We, and everyone in our respective countries, and our neighboring countries, are directly effected by the US. It would be insane for us not to worry about it.

Click to expand...

For the record. My stance is on something else entirely. Since you do not live in this country, you do not know the way everyday life here works, how could you? It's not such a critique so much as a spouting out the obvious. In this country, most jobs . . nearly 95% of them, require you to have some form of identification, savvy? So you don't have ID. Well how can you change this?

I would like to point you all to our issuance system of the DMV, or the 'Department of Motor Vehicles'. Within the confines of it's walls, website and other devices you will find that obtaining your ID is not as hard as you all make it sound. So, you live in the city? Well too bad, in order to get a job, you must provide a photo ID and/or Social Security Card or a Birth Certificate.

Which companies mandate this? Nearly all, including 'starter jobs' like McDonald's, Burger King, WalMart, any fast food place, any retailer (not privately owned), construction, etc. Why is it so important and mandated to have ID? Because. If someone came into a place of business and demanded to see the employee manifest, they have a right to do so with the right credentials. Despite popular belief, hiring illegal and undocumented workers is illegal. Why? Due to regulation, a lot of these workers are considered to not be certified for the line of work they are in. Mandating ID is also a great way to figure out who'dunits.

The IRS, which is our Internal Revenue Service, requires you to have ID. Why? So they can collect taxes? How? From positions and places of work that offer you money. In order to collect data and taxes, you must fill out a W-2. That's our work order and is designed for tax collection purposes. In order to fill out a W-2 form? Yes, that's right, an identification card or some equivalence accepted by that state. Now, do all the homeless and poverty stricken have ID? No. Can they obtain one should they choose? Yes. Again, the library systems are largely free, and other resources are more than willing to assist with obtaining a form of Identification. You can find all of this on the DMV website. I'll tell you the same thing that I tell kids that refuse to do their homework, if you're not trying to do it, then you can't claim it's difficult. Go to the library, which is free, and follow the directions from there. Claiming that you don't have a computer isn't much of an excuse. Claiming that you live in a 'violent neighborhood' isn't an excuse either.

The argument of 'They have no where else to go' is hogwash and you should know that. I've been homeless before and yet, here I am. Take yourself on a bus bound for nowhere and remove yourself from your violent neighborhood where you're likely to die from a stray bullet. It's tough, yeah, but you do what you have to do to survive and ducking under windows and worried you'll get shot in school by some gangbanger punk is no way to live.

Who's responsible for knowing the laws in the state you live in? You are. You, as a citizen are expected to know your state laws, and as they say "ignorance is no excuse". The DMV, the USPS (that's our mailing system or Postal System) have pamphlets and information regarding how to obtain an ID. Obtaining some form of identification is not all too costly either, so that point is much moot as well.

We had about what? 120 million people vote, the majority of them in California (population wise, not vote wise). We have 300 million American citizens (approx. illegality doesn't count towards this total if I remember correctly) so the argument that the vast majority of the rest of the country doesn't have ID? Doesn't that just seem a bit . . . strange to you? That nearly two thirds of a nation didn't vote? Did you know that many businesses here in the states are mandated to allow paid leave to vote (depending on state law)?

If two thirds of the country didn't vote, then it's a safe assumption to say that roughly half of the people complaining about it didn't actually vote, no? Wouldn't it be weird to claim that 100% of the people complaining about this were all voters that voted in the current election? So, yes, claiming that half of the people complaining didn't vote is an accurate statement and one I'll adhere to, because it's logistically sound, claiming that it's not goes against the numbers and the odds of you winning that bet are less than 1:3 where the house wins on a tie.

The Electoral college collage. Oh boy. If there are any here that don't know what this is supposed to do, then I'll touch on it briefly. Roughly 120 million people voted, no? Okay. So each person has a 1:1 vote okay fine. But what about the college, the purpose it serves? There are roughly 55 million people living in California, of which holds absolutely no voter ID laws at all, so by this math if everyone in California stood up and voted one way for one party there is a high chance that California would shape federal law, savvy?

Still lost? Okay how's this, you're the fattest person at the table right? Right. So you get to decide what everyone gets to eat because you're the fattest in the room, right? Seem fair enough? I mean, you're not paying for everything, but hey you're fat and you obviously know what's best for everyone else in the room. You want to eat a big stack of waffles coated in butter, doused in bacon grease, smothered in fried chicken and topped mint icecream with whipped cream and a cherry on top. Yummy. This is despite the fact that you're not paying for everyone and disregard Karen's mint allergy or that Tom is a vegetarian and Meghan is diabetic. Does that make a little more sense? I haven't had to explain its use in quite a while, but the electoral college is the third party that says "Now wait just a minute there, fatty. We all are paying for this, so we all have the right to decide what we agree on to eat!". This was all very basic stuff I learned in, like, elementary school. Don't know how everyone forgot . . .

So I hope that helps clear that up a tad bit.

My beef with those outside the country is this: you don't live here, you have little to no experience in our governmental systems, don't pay taxes here or know which forms go where . . . see, all of this is just small potatoes and in no way an attack on anyone personally, but I find it odd that someone from the outside looking in at the big picture didn't take the smaller pieces into consideration. Getting an ID isn't that hard. I've pointed you towards some easy pickings there at the DMV. If you don't know what a birth certificate is or a social security card, the DMV will walk you through that. Don't know? They have a phone number.

The only reason why someone doesn't have ID as an adult is that either they're homeless, illegal, lame, or lazy. There are several things over here in the states that are provided free of charge to those that seek them out or ask for them. If you listen to the Obama administration, apparently unemployment is down at 5% which is about 15 million people going by a population of 300 million. So can someone please explain to me how these 15 million people are the majority of Americans? Why they don't have ID? This is the minority, and like I said, in order to get a job, you MUST have an ID! The government doesn't like being stiffed, so, either the Obama Administration is lying, or 15 million people don't have jobs or ID or both. So if these 15 million people are all voting age, then how come it's such a 'huge problem' these voter ID laws? I've been able to receive photo Identification in three different states with two of them being just my birth certificate and an envelope with my name on it to prove residency! Where was I able to get it? Washington, Oregon, and California! The big states that are vehemently opposed to Voter ID laws.

You can waltz in to a Texas voting booth and show nothing but a school ID! How do you get one of those? By going to school! Which is mandated by law! Am I smoking crack or something? To further put nails into the coffin using a nail gun, the Supreme court (the 'is all, be all' of courts) stated that 'Mandating ID to vote is not unconstitutional'.

I needed to plug this in somewhere, in case I forget to address it. In the case of not having a DMV in certain areas, I'd like to point you towards area least likely to have one. Gangland, USA is not the place for a school, library, Post Office or DMV. The reason why they don't have them in 'poor neighborhoods' is because these areas are more likely to 'up the ante' so to speak, meaning that they're more likely to be attacked, burgled, or robbed. If you're not thinking about the people who work there, you should take that into consideration. Would you appreciate having to work in an area rampant with gang violence? No? If you're willing to brave the streets of downtown LA be my guest, you're far braver than I ohoho! Really though, it's the same reason, I imagine, as the reasons over in the EU. Poor areas are more likely to produce crime, there fore you can't, in good conscience, place or force someone to work there. Imagine the lawsuits of employees that are attacked or die as a direct result from the neighborhood they service? Unless you want to see the post be escorted by soldiers again, I would ask someone to actually look into some of the areas where schools and businesses close down due to crime, not due to 'we don't want you to vote'. It seems very unlikely that someone would go around closing things down in anticipation for a four year bid (or two year). The vast majority of Americans don't vote following the election.

Of 50 states in the US, 30 of them require voter ID. Of those 30 states only 15 of them require photo ID. To get a photo ID you may need a birth certificate. Hey, you're in luck if you were born after 1930 or not born in a barn in the middle of Bumbang, Tennessee; you have a birth certificate. Boom. It's estimated that this (requiring ID) affects the elderly far more than it does younger voters, and most believe that requiring ID at the polls effects around 2% or 2.4 four million people. What makes this number seem smaller is still the fact that a couple hundred dead people voted back in June (CA). Dead people still turn out to vote it seems, but not in the millions. Probably more in the thousands and tens of thousands, maybe, but other than that I wouldn't be all too sure.

There are huge differences between the States and Europe across the sea (ocean, sea just sounded better). If anyone has any questions on how daily life works here in the states, I am happy to answer them the best I can. Call the DMV and see for yourself, I'm sure you'd be surprised at how far you can get before they wise up.

I would think that one can still have a fairly good understanding about another country or thing without actually have been living in it for a long time. But really I just don't like the idea of barring people from discussion or claiming that their statements are basically invalid because they're not part of a certain group.

Anyway, when will we hear the results of this? And will it even matter? Clinton already won the popular vote, but even if she gets some more votes from the recount, will that really affect the electoral vote (the part that ultimately matters) at all?

Nah said:

Anyway, when will we hear the results of this? And will it even matter? Clinton already won the popular vote, but even if she gets some more votes from the recount, will that really affect the electoral vote (the part that ultimately matters) at all?

Click to expand...

Trump won PA by 46k votes, MI by 10k votes and WI by 22k votes. If those three results are overturned (not likely), suddenly Clinton becomes president with a massive popular vote mandate. Can they find enough spare votes out of a few million cast in each state? Unlikely. But they think a moonshot attempt is worth it.

I guess it also has to do with Stein being somewhat regretful that her results in each of those states were greater than Trump's lead. Nader 2016!

The Michigan AG has filed suit against the recount, claiming that she lost those states, clearly. Which is true, I would say. It's still odd and sneaky the way she's going about this, considering Clinton herself didn't file for the notion.

Even if they do recount this, and even if Hillary does indeed win, the nightmare realization would come rather swiftly. If they do win, then 50% of the country are now free and justified to cry outrage and are vindicated in saying that the system is rigged. Not saying that I agree with that statement, but I would bet big money that the PR problem would spill out of hand extremely fast and they couldn't possibly keep up with all the damage control. Or, against my big money bet, the Trump supporters would get really upset, but stay at home and play X-Bawks Wun instead.

I wouldn't be surprised if it boiled down to that "See? The system is rigged!" and then they'd worry about their approval rating, and as popular opinion is poisonous, it'd catch on quickly and perhaps an overwhelming majority would believe that they were lied to and cheated.

#Toast2020

Jill Stein Just concede? I thought she pulled out and the recounts were over with?

Hillary has denounced it, it isn't going through to the states, it wont change the result of the election.

It's now in "Who cares" territory.

I don't think it helps PR when she's not doing what she said she would. Even the Huffington Post and the NY Times are looking left and right with looks of confusion on their faces! It's bad enough when half teh country is against you from the start, but when media outlets that are in your own corner are questioning your actions, it gets ugly. The people have said it was a money grab and it's hard to not call it that when the thing they said would happen, happens.

Jill Stein today says she's still going through with it.

This is getting ridiculous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5443ab524aec

I was going to start a new thread but I think it's relevant enough to just go here. Thoughts?

It's something we've been aware of the whole time so it's not really new news, Trump's wonky denial of it is textbook Trump (And not really fitting with thing's hes said himself about his own connections and direct speaking lines to Russian government officials during the election)

I don't know what else to say about it, really, other than it sucks

gimmepie said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5443ab524aec

I was going to start a new thread but I think it's relevant enough to just go here. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I dont think it will be damaging to his presidency chances unless it fuels the faithless elector coalition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcNGK7A-nYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ela3ml0JHd8

Source: David Pakman Show. Definitely has a liberal bias, but he is trustworthy and credible. He doesnt lie or manipulate information, which is why I like him.

But it will definitely result in further delegitimizing his presidency and people not trusting him (as if thats not low enough already).

Aliencommander1245 said:

It's something we've been aware of the whole time so it's not really new news, Trump's wonky denial of it is textbook Trump (And not really fitting with thing's hes said himself about his own connections and direct speaking lines to Russian government officials during the election)

I don't know what else to say about it, really, other than it sucks

Click to expand...

True enough, but now even his supporters can't deny it surely.

gimmepie said:

True enough, but now even his supporters can't deny it surely.

Click to expand...

Some of his hardcore supporters love Putin and are actually disappointed Putin isn't a nationalist. I doubt they care to be honest.

Considering there seems to be a huge lump of the newspapers here saying 'fake news' is linked to Russia and marked as Russia's propaganda arm is laughable. The Media here in the US is beyond laughable. They've been printing retractions like crazy. It's more than I've ever seen in my entire life previously. It used to be that printing a retraction meant the editor was going to say something like "Over my dead body!" but the huge amounts of denial they have been propagating is admirable, if nothing else.

So far they've blamed Hillary's loss on:
fake news
Wiki Leaks
The FBI
Pepe the Frog
the Alt-Right
the Russians
Racism
Sexism and/or Misogyny
The 'Whitelash'
Fox News

This is pathetic. We have verified proof that most of the media we've seen this year have been caught up in lies, scandals, and half truths. I suppose that it must be everyone's fault except Hillary, hmm? Despite the fact that roughly half of the Democratic party wanted Bernie on the ticket and in many ways, should have been. Must've been someone else. Everything else, anything else but us!

You know, it's funny. I don't particularly enjoy the media, but I have to say this Joe guy is entertaining. There's also a good bit on how people are flipping tables wanting to be able to burn the American flag as free speech and argue against Trump while Clinton argued much on the same side in the past.

We really have to stop deflecting from the crap the DNC actually did do and say by blaming Russia for revealing it. That's like the courts sentencing an informant for telling the police about a planned murder.

Hands said:

We really have to stop deflecting from the crap the DNC actually did do and say by blaming Russia for revealing it. That's like the courts sentencing an informant for telling the police about a planned murder.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is more that there wasn't much actually revealed that meant anything, and in it's place a lot of russian owned news sites spread a load of misinformation in the wake of the emails, and overblew things that meant very little

Aliencommander1245 said:

I think the problem is more that there wasn't much actually revealed that meant anything, and in it's place a lot of russian owned news sites spread a load of misinformation in the wake of the emails, and overblew things that meant very little

Click to expand...

Donna Brazile handing Clinton debate questions before the debate to give her an unfair advantage over Sanders, on a platform where he was deliberately given less time to answer than Hillary on almost every question

"My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." - "its a jesus thing" - so stoking either anti atheist or antisemitic sentiment against Sanders

Then there was Clinton's lawyer colluding with the DNC on how to downplay and discredit Sanders, discussions on how to push the narrative that Sanders was untenable despite the fact the DNC was supposed to be neutral and constantly claimed as much and the fact that several e mails showed the DNC having influence over apparently neutral media outlets.

That stuff is greasy, it's shady as hell. It's embarrassing.

Aliencommander1245 said:

I think the problem is more that there wasn't much actually revealed that meant anything, and in it's place a lot of russian owned news sites spread a load of misinformation in the wake of the emails, and overblew things that meant very little

Click to expand...

I think this cinches it. There isn't a load of 'Fake News' websites. It doesn't help that CNN's News Anchor Brian Williams (Stelter?) warned us all of 'fake news' when he himself was suspended for six months without pay for fake news of his own! Everyone is now currently being lied to by the majority of the media. There aren't Russian spies under your pillow and they certainly don't control all the 'fake news'. This is even more blatantly obvious when it's gotten to the point that even some of the left wing papers are crying out to say 'stop calling everything fake news'.

The Washinton Post put out a retraction on their 'Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election' story because they were wrong and because they spread fake news of their own. You don't print a retraction unless you're caught dead-to-rights wrong.

They even put out an article titled 'How the War against fake news backfired' even points out the Washinton Post's glaring bias and incompetence.

The Daily Beast, a left leaning website not considered to be fake news , ported that the Washington Post is in the hot seat for laying blame on blameless persons.

Slate printed an article criticizing much of the media for calling everything and everyone fake news. Slate is not slated as a 'fake news' website and is mainly democratic.

Here's Jimmy Dore, from The Young Turks. Yeah, the guy that would rather spit on people than fight them:


Here's Joe again, from the MSNBC. Not fake News. Joe hits the nail on the head by pointing and saying "Now wait a minute". The media is having a mad dash to compensate from their sales dropping like a rock.


The media is now assessing at how they can recoup from the aftermath from their lies, half truths, mistakes and pointing fingers at people that had absolutely no connection to the Russians at all. It's ignorance and naivet? speaking when someone says every last youtuber that said something bad about Hillary Clinton is controlled by Russia. Ludicrous!

Those that believe in this lie are . . . unfortunate. They understand nothing yet lay claim to stacks of information that they cannot hold above their head when in reality they hold nothing more than a handful of dust. It's sad, really. I don't understand how the media thinks they can get away with as many lies and false stories they put out and not expect to get slammed. The media is supposed to patrol the state to ensure fairness, but who patrols the media?