• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jill Stein Launches Fundraising Effort To Ask For A Recount In 3 States

Status
Not open for further replies.

CDX

Member
This post is from before the first goal was hit, no?:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=225361315&postcount=552

It already mentions the 6-7 million and I also remember reading it myself on the website before the first goal was hit.
I don't know if they added it before or after they hit 2.5 million, but the 6-7 million wasn't mentioned when they started taking money.

 
I'm willing to bet not one recount happens
Oh there will be a counting alright

personcountingmoney.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
There are likely only so many fools out there. I did like the fact that no one responded to my comment that this effort is being led by a voting rights law firm that is going to make millions off of dissaffected Hilary voters.

Well, I didn't really have anything to add, because you're 100% right.
 

Condom

Member
This thread makes it sounds like Stein is evil incarnate.

Well we all know Jill Stein is crazy because wifi and vaccinations

or so I have been told by those who pressured people into supporting Clinton because 'you shouldn't be opposed to her when you agree with most of her program'.
 
There is no way only Trump supporters would have noticed this. This is way too big for nobody to blow the whistle.
We had this conversation in the other thread. Voting statistics don't show any signs of foul play. Let it go.

I was primarily speaking hypothetically. I doubt it's the case, actually. But considering Russia's been hacking several key elements of this election, there's enough lingering doubt to double-check things.

I'm more in the "ok, ths is a clear sign the Electoral College is fucked up" camp than "Russia stole the election for Trump" camp. That being said, I think if it had been feasible for Russia to do so, they would've tried, the way things were going.
 

fantomena

Member
Well we all know Jill Stein is crazy because wifi and vaccinations

or so I have been told by those who pressured people into supporting Clinton because 'you shouldn't be opposed to her when you agree with most of her program'.

There are worse and crazier things to have as politics than to think or appeal to anti-vaccines and wifi-tinfoil hat people and believes .
 
There are worse and crazier things to have as politics than to think or appeal to anti-vaccines and wifi-tinfoil hat people and believes .

Don't forget 9-11 conspiracy nuts...


The key problem is she showed a lack of understanding in the policies she proposed. To be honest, there were four major candidates common to most ballots, and three out of those four did not understand the limitations and complexities of the job they were applying for. Like her or not (which is a stupid way to pick your country's leader, by the way), Clinton was the singular person with a chance that actually had some grasp of what a President can actually do. Period.
 

Vestal

Junior Member
How is another demoralizing defeat going to motivate people to keep fighting? Let's use our energy for things that can actually make a difference rather than some pie in the sky bullshit.

I was speaking to the general sentiment of its over and move on.
 

KingBroly

Banned
It won't though. A recount doesn't look for fraud. They'd just be redoing the exact same process they already did.

In Michigan, she has to prove she, as a candidate, has been "aggrieved," which means that she must prove that all of those Trump or Hillary votes were actually for her, giving her the state win instead of Trump. Hillary "could" do it. But as a 3rd party candidate, Stein is out to lunch I'm afraid.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d...5))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-116-1954-XXXIII.pdf

A lawyer who breaks it down (He says he's a liberal in another tweet):
https://twitter.com/openargs/status/801550227362762754
No. You must be an "aggrieved party," i.e., it must make a difference whether you won or lost.
 
In Michigan, she has to prove she, as a candidate, has been "aggrieved," which means that she must prove that all of those Trump or Hillary votes were actually for her, giving her the state win instead of Trump. Hillary "could" do it. But as a 3rd party candidate, Stein is out to lunch I'm afraid.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d...5))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-116-1954-XXXIII.pdf

A lawyer who breaks it down (He says he's a liberal in another tweet):
https://twitter.com/openargs/status/801550227362762754

The law firm that pushed this will end up pulling one of the greatest KS scams in recent memory. It's amazing to see how quickly this thread dries up after the goal kept getting extended for attorney fees and people kept putting up red flags.
 

KingBroly

Banned
The law firm that pushed this will end up pulling one of the greatest KS scams in recent memory. It's amazing to see how quickly this thread dries up after the goal kept getting extended for attorney fees and people kept putting up red flags.

I think a bigger problem would be if she was granted recounts when she clearly doesn't have standing. The numbers keep going up at a steady pace though, so I dunno. There are many red flags going up in my mind about this, while still trying to stay grounded in the reality of what data analysts and lawyers keep saying (which is that it's a scam).
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
In Michigan, she has to prove she, as a candidate, has been "aggrieved," which means that she must prove that all of those Trump or Hillary votes were actually for her, giving her the state win instead of Trump. Hillary "could" do it. But as a 3rd party candidate, Stein is out to lunch I'm afraid.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d...5))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-116-1954-XXXIII.pdf

A lawyer who breaks it down (He says he's a liberal in another tweet):
https://twitter.com/openargs/status/801550227362762754

By my understanding...She would end up being an aggrieved party due to potential fraud. It is easily argued that her desired policies mesh better with a Clinton win than a Trump win. The only thing that should change in the case of Michigan is the cost. .5% of vote disparity between her and winner per ward for recount fees.

I'd say Wisconsin will likely be recounted. MI as 2nd most likely. PA least likely because that would be a hilarious disaster
 
By my understanding...She would end up being an aggrieved party due to potential fraud. It is easily argued that her desired policies mesh better with a Clinton win than a Trump win. The only thing that should change in the case of Michigan is the cost. .5% of vote disparity between her and winner per ward for recount fees.

I'd say Wisconsin will likely be recounted. MI as 2nd most likely. PA least likely because that would be a hilarious disaster

Michigan already did a recount and slightly adjusted the numbers.

How do you argue fraud when there is no proof? The original complaints for fraud already said they have no proof.
 

KingBroly

Banned
By my understanding...She would end up being an aggrieved party due to potential fraud. It is easily argued that her desired policies mesh better with a Clinton win than a Trump win. The only thing that should change in the case of Michigan is the cost. .5% of vote disparity between her and winner per ward for recount fees.

I'd say Wisconsin will likely be recounted. MI as 2nd most likely. PA least likely because that would be a hilarious disaster

The problem is her argument of potential fraud would need to reasonably prove that she has a shot in hell of winning the state if a recount was done (She CANNOT argue for either of the other candidates). She also told CNN that she has no evidence of hacking or fraud, meaning she currently has no case or standing.
 

Iksenpets

Banned
What's depressing is that this is siphoning off money that could be going to the Louisiana Senate race or to actually useful organizations like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood. Instead it'll just go to running this same stupid campaign for Jill Stein in 2020.
 

Brandson

Member
If there were votes cast that shouldn't have been, a recount isn't going to suddenly reveal those votes without some sort of deep data analysis. I don't see that happening so this seems pointless.
 

KingBroly

Banned
If there were votes cast that shouldn't have been, a recount isn't going to suddenly reveal those votes without some sort of deep data analysis. I don't see that happening so this seems pointless.

If they allow a recount, and votes are suddenly found, in like a bathroom or a closet, there is going to be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SHITSTORM. Because that'd be textbook voter fraud on a potential recount.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
The problem is her argument of potential fraud would need to reasonably prove that she has a shot in hell of winning the state if a recount was done (She CANNOT argue for either of the other candidates). She also told CNN that she has no evidence of hacking or fraud, meaning she currently has no case or standing.

iirc, you don't need evidence. Just stating they think there is fraud is enough to satisfy the requirement for Michigan law.
 
If they allow a recount, and votes are suddenly found, in like a bathroom or a closet, there is going to be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SHITSTORM. Because that'd be textbook voter fraud on a potential recount.
A bathroom full of hidden ballots? You need to face reality man.
 

KingBroly

Banned
iirc, you don't need evidence. Just stating they think there is fraud is enough to satisfy the requirement for Michigan law.

I posted the link to MI's law above. She has to give probable cause that she (Not Clinton or Trump) was cost the election. If she does not, she has no standing for a recount. Considering she lost MI by like...2 million votes, there should be no blue's chance in hell of that happening.

EDIT:
A bathroom full of hidden ballots? You need to face reality man.

I mean like a stall, or they were in someone's car, etc. Examples like that. It does happen.
 

Ac30

Member
What's depressing is that this is siphoning off money that could be going to the Louisiana Senate race or to actually useful organizations like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood. Instead it'll just go to running this same stupid campaign for Jill Stein in 2020.

Isn't it incredible. At this point I wish Stein would dump the 5 million dollarydoos in PP and actually use the money for something worthwhile. Goddamn.
 

BiggNife

Member
This thread makes it sounds like Stein is evil incarnate.
I don't think Stein is evil but also this campaign seems extremely exploitative in order to take advantage of angry young liberals who have money to burn

It should have been mentioned up front that a recount is not guaranteed and not buried in the fine print

As it is, it just feels like a lot of Democrats accidentally funded the Green Party's 2020 campaign and that's kind shitty.
 

Brandson

Member
If they allow a recount, and votes are suddenly found, in like a bathroom or a closet, there is going to be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR SHITSTORM. Because that'd be textbook voter fraud on a potential recount.

There is not going to be a found cache of uncounted paper ballots. Even if such a thing existed at one point, it for sure doesn't still exist. If electronic voting machines were hacked to enter additional votes, or votes for legitimate voters who didn't show up to vote, or dead people, that won't be identifiable in a traditional recount. Publishing all voting data for independent analysis is the only way to find anything like that.
 

Enosh

Member
seems like all they had to do is ask for money for a recount in WI

it's the easiest state to file in, it's very unlikely that fraud happened in MI and PA but not WI and if WI is somehow proven to have been hacked/messed with the whole thing gets turned on it's head anyway with recounts and audits in every state
 
I was primarily speaking hypothetically. I doubt it's the case, actually. But considering Russia's been hacking several key elements of this election, there's enough lingering doubt to double-check things.

I'm more in the "ok, ths is a clear sign the Electoral College is fucked up" camp than "Russia stole the election for Trump" camp. That being said, I think if it had been feasible for Russia to do so, they would've tried, the way things were going.

Agreed. If for some weird dream scenario, there were Russians helping the DNC win against Romney, I wouldn't be opposed to Romney launching a recount.

And the whole Wiki-Leaks thing is ridiculous - the fact that it had so much power over the election should be looked into.
 
So I would actually donate if she were to give the money away in a game show. Can you Win Jill Stein's Money?

Win_Ben_Steins_Money.jpg

someone needs to shop this picture...
 

Dirca

Member
giphy.gif

At those that truly think ANYTHING will actually come of this. There's no guarantee that the judge will even allow this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom