Support NeoGAF

[jfkgoblue]

1. the money Stein has to pay comes no where near the total cost of a recount, yo are asking Mi taxpayers to pay for a recount that doesn't conform with MI state law initiated by a fourth place finisher with around 1% of the vote

This is why I think the recount should not happen. It isn't changing shit, it's wasting our(taxpayers) money.

What's wrong with requiring the party demanding the recount pay all the costs? I pay Michigan taxes and us taxpayers should not be funding Jill Stein's publicity.

 

[Joni]

If they discover something here, they don't even need other recounts approved. It would poison the well, none of his victories would have an air of being legit.

 

[CloudyTuba]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Must punish all who dare to question Biff's authority. Zero tolerance for dissent.

Also if one recount finds issues, even if it is an isolated case, it will call into question the entire election and give them weeks of headaches. Bad PR. And then, what if it isn't isolated? I'm sure they'd rather skip the whole thing.

 

[PeskyToaster]

My district's recount is happening about two doors down the hallway from my office.

 

[Tansut]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

There was some bullshit going on like voter suppression, for sure, but practically everyone, including Trump, was pretty confident Hillary was going to take it. I mean, maybe that was all part of a Trump master plan, to feign confidence, but at no point has the man demonstrated the necessary intelligence, demeanor, or coherency that such a ploy would require.

 

[Peltz]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

Come on now. Lying and cheating are not the same thing.

 

[RDreamer]

This is why I think the recount should not happen. It isn't changing shit, it's wasting our(taxpayers) money.

What's wrong with requiring the party demanding the recount pay all the costs? I pay Michigan taxes and us taxpayers should not be funding Jill Stein's publicity.

What's wrong is you can't make a bill retroactive like that. Use the rules set in place, don't throw a fit afterwards.

 

[Doodis]

So, if somehow it's found that Clinton won Michigan instead of Trump, would that mean she takes the presidency? Or are more states needed?

 

[Particle Physicist]

So, if somehow it's found that Clinton won Michigan instead of Trump, would that mean she takes the presidency? Or are more states needed?

No. it's not enough to flip the presidency, but it would mean that that vote totals were off by an enourmous, unprecedented amount.

 

[soco]

So, if somehow it's found that Clinton won Michigan instead of Trump, would that mean she takes the presidency? Or are more states needed?

It's unlikely anything's going to change, but if it did and she magically won Michigan, she'd still need more.

 

[jfkgoblue]

What's wrong is you can't make a bill retroactive like that. Use the rules set in place, don't throw a fit afterwards.

But you obviously can...

They are doing nothing illegal and as a Michigan taxpayer, I support this.

 

[Morts]

Something like a national election seems important enough that counting more than once should be the default. Plus fighting a recount is not a good look.

 

[InfiniteBento]

Jill Stein is being asked to personally shoulder the full financial burden of a presidential recount, and taxpayers are paying $500,000 a day to secure Donald Trump.

Exactly. It's horse shit. If they want Jill Stein to pay for the recount then Donald should pay up for his bullshit security costs.

 

[Sephzilla]

Yeah, this is absolutely a case where if there's smoke there's fire. The fact that Republicans are fighting so incredibly hard against this is enough to raise doubt.

So, if somehow it's found that Clinton won Michigan instead of Trump, would that mean she takes the presidency? Or are more states needed?

If it was discovered that Clinton actually won Michigan, then I think the end result would be that all of the close states (including Florida) would be subjected to recounts. So no, Michigan wouldn't flip the presidency on its own, but it would potentially start a domino effect.

 

[RDreamer]

But you obviously can...

They are doing nothing illegal and as a Michigan taxpayer, I support this.

They can, but that's fucking messed up, man. People donated to Stein under the understanding that this could happen. To have the state say fuck you and change the rules after all that is spitting in a lot of people's faces, too.

Also, clinging to legality and whether you can do something or not is kinda shitty. Donald Trump can do whatever the fuck he wants with his businesses and have almost zero transparency with them, but that's fucked up too, for example.

 

[SkyOdin]

But you obviously can...

They are doing nothing illegal and as a Michigan taxpayer, I support this.

The US Constitution specifically makes it illegal to apply laws retroactively. People can only be charged with a crime if the action was illegal before it was commited, for example. This law would be thrown out immediatly if it gets brought to court.

 

[whytemyke]

If Michigan was actually paying for assistance to Flint with the lead poisoning, I might be able to get behind some type of reasoning Schuette would put forth.

Instead Michigan is fighting any attempts to make the state help. Which leads me to believe that someone in Michigan did something bad and doesn't want to get caught. Again.

Why would they care? Clearly nothing happens when they do terrible things anyways.

 

[GregLombardi]

I've read enough of this to know that something is clearly up in Michigan. Consider me tuned in, and notifying my friends / networks to tune in and look deeper into this.

 

[soco]

If it was discovered that Clinton actually won Michigan, then I think the end result would be that all of the close states (including Florida) would be subjected to recounts. So no, Michigan wouldn't flip the presidency on its own, but it would potentially start a domino effect.

Which couldn't actually happen due to time constraints. The electors have to be selected in a week.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

But you obviously can...

They are doing nothing illegal and as a Michigan taxpayer, I support this.

It's unconstitutional to make a retroactively applying law like this. So they actually are doing something illegal. You're supporting an unconstitutional law. Why are you doing that?

The person doing nothing illegal is Jill Stein.

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Which couldn't actually happen due to time constraints. The electors have to be selected in a week.

Here's a scenario: the electors are selected and vote in Donald Trump. Trump is inaugurated in January, the transition takes place, etc. In February, the recounts finish and it turns out Hillary actually won in terms of electoral votes. Now what?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Here's a scenario: the electors are selected and vote in Donald Trump. Trump is inaugurated in January, the transition takes place, etc. In February, the recounts finish and it turns out Hillary actually won in terms of electoral votes. Now what?

A Constitutional crisis this country has never faced before. There really isn't any sort of solution to the problem in the Constitution. We'd be flying blind.

 

[GregLombardi]

A Constitutional crisis this country has never faced before.

I would rather a constitutional crisis than a President who did not win.

I would also rather a crisis than a Trump presidency, knowing what is coming, but I would allow the presidency if he won.

 

[jfkgoblue]

They can, but that's fucking messed up, man. People donated to Stein under the understanding that this could happen. To have the state say fuck you and change the rules after all that is spitting in a lot of people's faces, too.

Also, clinging to legality and whether you can do something or not is kinda shitty. Donald Trump can do whatever the fuck he wants with his businesses and have almost zero transparency with them, but that's fucked up too, for example.

But that was known that it wasn't a guarantee, people volunteered their money. Forcing taxpayers to pay for this is bullshit.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Sounds about right for this state.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

with the way they are acting and the way trump projects everything I'm starting to wonder if republicans committed widespread fraud.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

Yes, they should be happily following this, happily waiting for a recount so they can celebrate the victory again, if they're confident they won.

Why you no confident?

 

[Kilau]

There has been zero proof of massive voter fraud, tampering or hacking, no state would want to pay out millions to appease the very distant 4th place finisher with a state wide recount.

As for trump, just because the winner of an election doesn't want a recount isn't iron clad proof they stole the election.

 

[gogosox82]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

Its not. They are just trying to run out the clock.

 

[Lenardo]

personally the recounting doesn't mean anything, because if it goes like wisconsin's is(or was) going, means trump will win the state by MORE-

Now i have not looked at the updated numbers , but the last time i looked trump - in wisconsin only- i have not looked for yesterdays or today's numbers so it probably has changed- but the last time i looked trump margin of victory increased by about 1500 votes over clinton (combination of trump + and clinton - votes (or both losing votes and clinton losing more than trump))

fun fact, if you removed California from the popular vote totals, trump would have won the popular vote by around a million votes GJ California. hillary won california by about 3.5 million votes... LA county by itself - had about a million and a half more votes for clinton.

 

[Neoweee]

personally the recounting doesn't mean anything, because if it goes like wisconsin's is(or was) going, means trump will win the state by MORE-

Now i have not looked at the updated numbers , but the last time i looked trump - in wisconsin only- i have not looked for yesterdays or today's numbers so it probably has changed- but the last time i looked trump margin of victory increased by about 1500 votes over clinton (combination of trump + and clinton - votes (or both losing votes and clinton losing more than trump))

fun fact, if you removed California from the popular vote totals, trump would have won the popular vote by around a million votes GJ California.

Yes, but we don't do that, because it would be really damn stupid. Why don't we also remove "Appalachiafornia", a group of states that roughly have a combined population, turnout, and margin that sum to the opposite of California's?

 

[Lenardo]

i know we don't do that, but it shows how lopsided her popularity is in the country.

urbanites voted clinton, rural voted trump

even in california the rural areas of california had a much higher trump vote percentage- with the votes being almost 50-50 in those areas clinton won that were rural.

 

[Ogodei]

Yup.

Something's amiss.

Occam's Razor suggests that they're just afraid that the audit/recount will show just how badly these laws target african Americans, to the point that lawsuits could be started against the state.

 

[Chumley]

There has been zero proof of massive voter fraud, tampering or hacking, no state would want to pay out millions to appease the very distant 4th place finisher with a state wide recount.

As for trump, just because the winner of an election doesn't want a recount isn't iron clad proof they stole the election.

Russia hacked the holy living hell out of the entire DNC infrastructure with no consequences, there's no doubt in my mind they pulled some shit tipping the swing states over in the election results. The FBI are in their pocket too.

 

[Ithil]

personally the recounting doesn't mean anything, because if it goes like wisconsin's is(or was) going, means trump will win the state by MORE-

Now i have not looked at the updated numbers , but the last time i looked trump - in wisconsin only- i have not looked for yesterdays or today's numbers so it probably has changed- but the last time i looked trump margin of victory increased by about 1500 votes over clinton (combination of trump + and clinton - votes (or both losing votes and clinton losing more than trump))

fun fact, if you removed California from the popular vote totals, trump would have won the popular vote by around a million votes GJ California. hillary won california by about 3.5 million votes... LA county by itself - had about a million and a half more votes for clinton.

Wow if you remove a large chunk of the votes, the total will change.

 

[InstigateAndInquire]

even in california the rural areas of california had a much higher trump vote percentage- with the votes being almost 50-50 in those areas clinton won that were rural.

We would never remove California, it is the 6th largest economy in the world or something yeah?? If we go with the cherry-picking argument, CA should be weighted more than any rural area in the US. But currently, it is actually under-represented.

You do kinda have a point though. Even in TX/LA/AL, practically every county with an urban/city area went to Clinton comfortably.

 

[Kilau]

Russia hacked the holy living hell out of the entire DNC infrastructure with no consequences, there's no doubt in my mind they pulled some shit tipping the swing states over in the election results. The FBI are in their pocket too.

Tricking John Podesta into hacking himself and getting emails from a political party are not the same as infiltrating thousands of voting precincts and tampering with machines by hand.

As for the FBI, really?

 

[Morts]

Russia hacked the holy living hell out of the entire DNC infrastructure with no consequences, there's no doubt in my mind they pulled some shit tipping the swing states over in the election results. The FBI are in their pocket too.

I don't think there's any evidence that Russian hackers actually compromised voting machines or anything like that, but it is astounding to me that a month after the election no one is talking about the Russian influence in the lead up.

 

[thehypocrite]

I mean on the surface, that's true. But if MI were to flip, it raises the legitimacy of the other states that were in play, and ultimately the legitimacy of the election as a whole. Trump goes from having a narrow upset to having literally stolen the election, and it destroys faith in the electoral process. The R's are acting like dipshits and I don't like it, but no matter what happens there are no winners here.

I don't consider an scenario in which elections were stolen as better than proves they were and demands accountability.

In your post one thing is better than the other. Fuck the fictions of compliance.

 

[Chumley]

Think about how brilliant it would be on Putin's part if he waited till Inauguration Day to admit he interfered in the election results. Even without evidence, it would throw the county into absolute chaos and there'd be grounds to think he's not bullshitting.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I aint even mad at it. Jill only asked for a recount to scam a bunch of people afraid of Trump out of $6M. If the bill stops scammers like Jill who have no chance of winning from pulling another stunt like that then good.

you realize that if the bill passes would mean that the state can punish anyone they want for anything they had done.

 

[Illucio]

Just putting this out here, one of the Trump supporters sitting outside combo protesting is someone me and my friends know. His name is Zach and he believes Islam is a cult and that one of the main goals of Muslim people is to kill all LGBT people,

Only top quality people out there.

 

[Dude Abides]

i know we don't do that, but it shows how lopsided her popularity is in the country.

urbanites voted clinton, rural voted trump

even in california the rural areas of california had a much higher trump vote percentage- with the votes being almost 50-50 in those areas clinton won that were rural.

Was this your first election? This is not a new phenomenon.

 

[GhaleonEB]

i know we don't do that, but it shows how lopsided her popularity is in the country.

urbanites voted clinton, rural voted trump

even in california the rural areas of california had a much higher trump vote percentage- with the votes being almost 50-50 in those areas clinton won that were rural.

Why frame this around Clinton? The flip side of your post applies to Trump. The entire electorate is polarized.

 

[Ghost]

To me it just sounds like the republicans are out to make sure Stein spends every penny she's taken on the recount (and then some if possible)

 

[Hierophant]

not to say that he did because that seems too far fetched, would you be even surprised if trump cheated a bunch?

 

[tuxfool]

To me it just sounds like the republicans are out to make sure Stein spends every penny she's taken on the recount (and then some if possible)

Why do they care?

If anything Stein is a useful idiot to them.

 

[MrGerbils]

Why do they care?

If anything Stein is a useful idiot to them.

Because it's a waste of money. If she wants to waste money, waste her own.

 

[tuxfool]

Because it's a waste of money. If she wants to waste money, waste her own.

She is wasting her own money. Republicans care about her wasting her money?

To them, it would be much better for her to pocket it and keep being herself.

 

[KingBroly]

Okay, Michigan Court of Appeals ruling:

1 - Federal Judge (Goldstein) did not overstep his bounds.

2 - Tells Board of Canvassers that Stein IS NOT an aggrieved candidate under the law and tells them to stop the recount because of this.

BoC meets at 9:30am tomorrow, and sets up another court date with Goldstein and the MI SC "if" the BoC agrees that she's not aggrieved (She's not).

I'm guessing it's a 'Because BoC didn't do their Job, Fed Judge didn't overstep state's rights.'

Does this stop the recount? I have no idea.

Federal District Court in Cincinnati is also hearing this case at some point, but that most likely does look like it'd stop the recount as well, if I'm reading the Judge list and how they're supposed to rule on cases. I'm too fucking confused right now.


As for Pennsylvania, a Bush-appointed Federal Judge will hear Stein's case on Friday, a day after Pennsylvania certifies their results, and 3 days before safe harbor for electors begins.