NBC Recount Coverage Trump's response is amusing/sad, especially after all his talk of a rigged system and not committing to accepting the results if he lost.
Of course on the other hand, it is very strange that Hillary is getting involved in this very long shot attempt after her previous comments and actions.. Thoughts?
Of course on the other hand, it is very strange that Hillary is getting involved in this very long shot attempt after her previous comments and actions.. Thoughts?
"President-elect Donald Trump slammed the effort as a "scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded." He also posted on Twitter, including a series of tweets early Sunday quoting Clinton's previous comments on respecting the outcome of the election and calling the recount effort "sad.""
57 comments:
Yes... Trump can be an IDIOT at times...
Dude, You lost the popular vote... Get over it...
Donald Trump is now questioning the legitimacy of the election he won
Donald hasn't yet grasped the principle that it is a free country. I expect that the nation will spend much of the next four years educating our child like president about the principles of democracy he should have learned in middle school.
--Hiram
As others point out, is it consistent for Donald to argue both that millions of people voted illegally, while also arguing that we shouldn't recount the votes. If Donald is correct in his complaint about huge numbers of illegal votes, isn't a recount the natural and obvious place to start in looking at the problem? Why would he not want a recount in those circumstances?
--Hiram
The problem with recounting for illegal votes is that, once the votes are counted the first time, there is zero way to know which ones were illegally cast. The only way to weed out illegal votes is to prevent them from being cast in the first place, and that the Democrats (for obvious reasons) do not want to happen.
I also point out that, from personal experience, there is ADDITIONAL cheating that takes place during a recount.
What I find hilarious is that Jill Stein is the one pushing for the recount, and in all three states Jill Stein had more votes than what Hillary lost by. If Jill Stein wanted Hillary to win, all she would have had to do was drop out of the race before the votes were cast! Thank you, Jill!
Additional humor can be found in her receiving most of her recount support money from George Soros, the guy promoting widespread voter fraud across the country.
Hillary's campaign is getting involved in the recounts as a throwaway gesture to the growing number of her supporters who have been unhappy about what they perceive as the Democratic Party's somewhat weak-kneed response to the election results.
If Trump had lost the Electoral College despite winning the popular vote by over 2 million, while the Clinton campaign had benefited from Russian hacking, you can bet that the Trump campaign and the Republican Party in general would be working real hard to say that the election results were not legitimate.
The problem with recounting for illegal votes is that, once the votes are counted the first time, there is zero way to know which ones were illegally cast.
I don't know why that might be. Recounting votes can tell us lots of stuff. But President elect Trump claims to be knowledgeable on this subject. Perhaps he could tell us how the massive vote fraud he identified occurred. And also he could tell us how he knows the vote fraud was to his disadvantage.
In any event, it doesn't matter who is asking for the recount. Our president elect claims that massive fraud has occurred. Shouldn't we follow up?
--Hiram
Sean, it's surprising how much you seem to know about Republicans, when we're such strangers to ya.
Hiram, once the ballot is in the box there is no way to know by whom it was cast. A recount cannot tell you that. Trump does not have to tell you how the voter fraud actually occurred, but even I can tell you that there are many ways that it may have occurred. For example, some states permit illegal aliens to have a drivers license, and then allow those with a drivers license to vote. There it is. In Minnesota, felons are not allowed to vote, by law, but our Democrat Secretary of State has instructed election judges to allow it. More fraud.
"Sean, it's surprising how much you seem to know about Republicans, when we're such strangers to ya. "
In 2000, prior to Election Day, the Bush team had prepared for the opposite scenario from what actually occurred. They though there was a strong possibility that they would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. Their plan was to push the notion that a Gore win under such circumstances was illegitimate.
Why would things be different now?
Trump does not have to tell you how the voter fraud actually occurred, but even I can tell you that there are many ways that it may have occurred.
Trump, of course, owes us nothing. But if refuses to talk, he is in a difficult position to respond he leaves a vacuum that others will fill. There are certainly issues of voter fraud that can be addressed by recounts. And certainly Trump has stated quite clearly that the process that elected him is the result of massive fraud. So how can he object to an investigation of his allegations? Why doesn't he welcome them as we do? He raised the issue. And if he has a problem with the way the issue is raised or addressed, he is free to speak his mind on the subject.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Trump is an egotistical idiot who dislikes the idea that he got WHOMPED in the popular vote by Clinton. It kind of undermines his "mandate".
Politifact 3 Million
WP Fact Check
Snopes
Now he could have just ignored the recount folks because there is almost 0 chance of their efforts changing anything. Apparently they would need to flip 3 states...
Instead he chose to escalate the situation and come off appearing foolish and petty again.
I am sure happy he didn't win MN !!! Otherwise I would have to feel guilty for getting him elected.
Now he could have just ignored the recount folks because there is almost 0 chance of their efforts changing anything.
Actually, I kind of suspect the point of the recount is to look at various forms of voter fraud. I don't think it's intended or expected to reverse any results.
--Hiram
Let's turn this around. There is "no evidence," you say, that illegal aliens voted in the election. Where is the evidence that they did NOT, or could not have done so? Was it in fact possible, and could it have been detected and/or prevented by the procedures then in place? Saying "there is no way to know" as some of the "fact checkers" do, is to admit the possibility that Trump is right.
Hiram, you have not yet explained how a recount can uncover fraud. How do you tell a fraudulent ballot from a legitimate one after it goes in the box?
Jerry,
It is pretty easy to tell if the registered voters were citizens or not... No need to even look at the ballots.
Unless you think 3 million registered voters were replaced with illegal imposters and no one noticed... Including the 3 million registered voters...
Of course here is an interesting conspiracy theory... Trump, Melania and Putin collude to hack and change the vote in Wisc, Mich and Penn, and Trump is fearful that he will be found out during the recount. Now that would make a good thriller...
So what if the voters were NOT registered, but registered same day as we do in MN? Even if it is later discovered that they are not legal citizens, or were felons, or were impostors or were not "real" people at all, how do you distinguish their ballot from every other one in the box? How do you know how that invalid ballot is marked?
If Democrats were truly interested in preventing fraud, they would at least allow "provisional ballots" for same-day registrations, to be accepted only after verification, as absentee ballots are. Just like in manufacturing, you cannot "inspect quality into the product" after the fact.
And imposters can pretty easily avoid detection by simply posing as a dead person. Surprising how many dead people vote every year.
It looks like a lot of dead people are registered, but few vote... Unless you have a better source.
"Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says it's amazing how many times his state has come across names on the voter rolls that appear to be the same person, but turn out not to be.
"We've even had cases, in very small counties, people [with the] same name and same birth dates," added Reed.
He said that has led to inaccurate reports that "dead" people are voting. He admits there have been a few cases in his state where widows or widowers have cast ballots for former spouses, but he said such fraud is very rare."
I don't have a better source at the moment, but again, when the Secretary of State refuses to purge dead people from the rolls, how much fraud is enabled, and how is such fraud corrected after the fact, if detected at all?
As for same name mistakes, I can tell you that in a previous MN election, there were more than 100,000 such duplications. I can also say anecdotally that instances of double-voting have occurred or were attempted.
Until systems are in place to detect and prevent it, voter fraud must continue to be alleged.
In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
you have not yet explained how a recount can uncover fraud.
A recount could tell us if the votes were counted accurately.
--Hiram
Yes, but fraudulent votes count the same as the non-fraudulent ones. I will concede that there is the possibility of simple mistakes in the original counting, or in the recounting. It is hard to /introduce/ fraud in the counting process, but I know from experience that it can be covered up at that point, so the fraudulent votes still count.
OK, so there IS voter fraud going on. Maybe Trump is inaccurate, but nobody can prove he is wrong.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/24/study-non-citizens-are-voting-in-federal-elections-and-probably-tipped-at-least-one-senate-race-to-democrats/
Hot Air
WP Could Illegals Decide Election
"Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin."
It is amazing to think that voter registration is so bad that it would not catch that a person is not a citizen...
Amazing, but true. The same day application says "are you a citizen?" Answer yes and you are home free. It was once state law that those here on a visa could get a drivers license but it had to carry a note about non-citizenship. But our current SOS does not include checking for that in the instructions to election judges. He DOES, however, permit the DL from ANY state ( many of which give DLs to illegals) to provide photo ID, and then all they have to do is check the box. Or not, most judges simply skip right over it.
On NPR they were interviewing the California SOS, he said that the voter registration when applying for a Driver's license has a check box where the applicant affirms they are 18 years old and an American citizen under threat of perjury... He seemed to think that was enough... :-)
Did I somehow fall into an alternate universe where common sense and law enforcement are not valued???
Not certain which alternate universe you are referencing, but surely simple logic applies? That is, one cannot find and prosecute perjury if one never checks for it. And if, as in MN, that testament allows you to immediately cast a ballot, voter fraud is committed and cannot be undone regardless of any subsequent prosecution. Now if the SOS would explain how those millions of check boxes were verified and the perjurers found and prosecuted, he would indeed be doing "enough."
Oh, and in CA they give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, so I'm betting that box doesn't get checked, whether checked or not.
so 40% of eligible voters don't bother to vote and you guys think illegal immigrants are going to commit a felony just to vote. seems highly unlikely to me. I think the felony results in a large fine and jail time. Who would want to take that risk to cast one vote out of 100 million.
Laurie,
I am just a fan of "Trust but Verify". Personally I think it is a very small issue, but find it strange that it is an issue at all.
Why our governments allow illegal residents to get driver's licenses and register to vote simply confounds my sense of law and order... They are not supposed to be here at all.
Then on the other side we have people demanding that simple Voter ID is too limiting... I think the inmates are trying to run the asylum.
Why our governments allow illegal residents to get driver's licenses and register to vote simply confounds my sense of law and order
I suggest you think it in terms of logic, or perhaps natural law.
What is the purpose of a driver license? Is it to ensure that people who driver have a certain minimal level of skill and knowledge of the rules of the road? When you are driving on the freeway, what is of more concern to you? That the driver of the car next to you knows how to drive? Or that his citizenship status is questionable?
Who would you rather have driving a school bus? An illegal alien who is a competent driver? Or a citizen who isn't?
--Hiram
Laurie, what you think is certainly reasonable, and it is tempting to agree with you but I cannot. Burglary, for example, is also against the law, but it happens all the time. The reason is that, statistically, only about half of them are reported, and only 1 in 10 reported burglaries ever result in an arrest. The conviction rate is about 70%, but only about half spend jail time. Voter fraud is a felony, too, but it is rarely reported, near impossible to track, and hard to prove. If a simple burglar has roughly a 1.5% chance of jail time, how much deterrent does a fraudulent voter see? Obviously it is easier to prevent it than to punish it (same as burglaries).
Again, if those claiming we have no voter fraud are right, then they should be perfectly willing to put in place those measures which would detect and prevent it and PROVE that they are right. Yes? (By the way, this year we were told to record every time we turned someone away that wanted to vote, and why. We had one.)
Also, by the way, a recent survey found that 6.5% (I believe) of non-citizens ADMITTED they had voted. Most likely unintentional fraud, but fraud nonetheless. Nationwide that would be at least 3/4 million votes. I'm starting to worry that Trump's wild guess (which I suspect it is) may be correct.
"What is the purpose of a driver license? "-- Hiram
It is to produce revenue for the State and guarantee, supposedly, some ability which will limit the damage done to people and property. If it were that ONLY, it would not be a problem. Unfortunately it is also the principal form of ID accepted at the polling place. THAT is the problem. If all states did like MN and put the note (non-citizen) on it, and instructed election judges to look for it, we would not have that as an issue.
they should be perfectly willing to put in place those measures which would detect and prevent it
I have no problem in putting in measures to prevent voting fraud. That's why we have voter registration. What I do object to, is measures which discourage voting.
It's like with credit cards. When you present a credit card to a merchant, he doesn't ask for ID. Why is that? It's because he knows if he does, he risks losing the sale. It's not that there aren't anti fraud measures in place. Getting a credit card involves a credit check. Stolen or lost cards can be immediately cancelled. There is electronic and other forms of surveillance at stores. All of these measures enhance security without losing customers at the point of sale.
I find it fascinating that Republicans seem disinterested in pursuing any course of action except those that enhance their electoral prospects. Could that just be a coincidence?
--Hiram
Do you find it equally fascinating that Democrats seem uninterested in stopping voter fraud that enhances THEIR electoral prospects?
Is it not interesting that, in all of the cases challenging voter ID laws, courts have not found anyone with "standing," that were legally allowed but unable to vote under the law?
Do you find it equally fascinating that Democrats seem uninterested in stopping voter fraud that enhances THEIR electoral prospects?
We don't think it exists in any meaningful way which certainly helps explain our lack of enthusiasm for the issue. But if Republicans want to spend a lot of money, for example, in checking voter rolls against birth certificates and naturalization records, I guess that is something we would consider. It should be noted that what Republicans do advocate, ID checks, has nothing to do with preventing unqualified individuals from voting, since of course, lots of people who don't qualify to vote have perfectly legal ID's.
--Hiram
I believe ID checks prevent more fraudulent votes than does prohibiting the checking of ID, as Minnesota law provides. It isn't a question of cost, since we pay election judges anyway and the added time to check an ID is minimal.
An opinion piece that states the obvious...
"And yet I can't help thinking that Trump is incredibly jealous of one person right now: Hillary Clinton.
She may not have cracked that highest, hardest glass ceiling, but she did crack his dream outcome: not being president. Even more, she managed not to be president while winning not just the popular vote but winning it by a huge margin.
That's the kind of loser Trump would name a "winner" -- if it had been him. And oh, how he seems to wish it had been. What else can you call someone with 306 Electoral College votes to date who still tweets baseless claims about "millions of people who voted illegally" costing him the popular vote? Sore winner much? "
And another tantrum with a suggested treatment.
here is k. drum's take on the Trump tantrum:
Donald Trump Flips Out Yet Again
so what do you think, John, after 3 weeks of president elect Trump, is he scaring you yet? what if the election in the country was tied and you had the deciding vote, would you still vote Trump over Hillary?
As always... I would have voted for Hillary if:
- if she had not gone to the dark socialist side...
and/or
- I was certain that the Congress was firmly in GOP control
Unfortunately neither was the case when we voted.
Similar question:
Would you have voted for Romney instead of Obama in 2012 to prevent Trump from getting into the White House?
Two Upsides with Trump:
1. No Shortage of Blogging Material
2. For 4 years I will not have to listen to Liberals crying that "the GOP is stopping the correct function of government".
While your scenario makes no sense, I will play along. If I could have kept Trump out of the white house in (in some weird twilight zone way) by voting for Romney to be president over Obama - (with a dem congress) - I would have done it without a second thought. And that is in spite of Obama being my fav pres sense FDR. I despise and fear Trump much more than I admire Obama.
As for liberals crying, you aint seen nothing yet, in our ability to do round the clock complaining about Trump destroying the country. Which will be much worse than our complaining about how the GOP is preventing Obama and the dems from improving the country with their obstructionism
Simple logic. Romney would have been a sitting popular GOP President. No GOP primaries required...
But what about voting for Romney if you were unsure what Congress was going to be during his term?
Would you vote for 4 years of Obama and give Trump his Presidency?
Or vote of Romney to block Trump?
That was the choice I faced on election day... There was a possibility that Congress may have flipped if Clinton had cleaned house...
By the way, I will say that Obama was mediocre and will never understand what folks like yourself loved about him. Not bad, not great...
If I could go back to 2012 and vote for Romney (even with a GOP congress) to save us from Trump today, I'd do it. Romney would have caused a lot of damage (and opportunity costs as well such as Obama care, Iran deal and climate agreement) but that is nothing compared to that we are in for with Trump. You have been warned (again.)
and FYI, what kept Obama from being great was GOP obstructionism. I think what he accomplished in spite of congress is remarkable. and besides that he is of outstanding character and integrity and is an all around very classy, upstanding guy. And don't forget his great sense of humor.
here is a chart created by k drum re Trump appts so far - I found it interesting/amusing/scary, but also lacking a letter to designate extreme or far right positions such as E for Devos for her plan to privatize schools which could also go for people supporting privatizing medicare.
Swamp Watch - 29 November 2016
Ah, Laurie, I see your problem. I am highly encouraged by Trump's excellent cabinet picks so far; you are worried. It seems he is picking people who have a strong desire to fulfill his campaign promises (and hopefully the abilities) and I count that as moving the country in the right direction. Is there anything wrong with privatizing education, so long as government pays for it and everybody gets it? I think privatizing both Medicare and Medicaid would we wonderful ideas, though Trump has indicated little desire to do so. I think Social Security should be privatized over time and would be a great improvement. I think repealing Obamacare would be a plus, and adding "replace" would be better still. The "deal" with Iran needs to be "fixed."
I don't care whether these plans are "extreme" or "far right" or anything else. Rather than prejudice, I think they should be judged fairly, on their own practical merits and outcomes.
Laurie...
You just had to throw it in one more time... :-)
"what kept Obama from being great was GOP obstructionism"
I sure won't miss hearing that excuse going forward... Maybe Trump's craziness is worth it.
Drum's Table is amusing.
Normal Conservatives = Part of Swamp
Wealthy Conservatives = Rich, Crazy, Scary
He sure is brilliant... And highly prejudiced...
wealthy = rich
crazy and scary are independent characteristics and conservative picks can be any combination of the three of them. None were given all three labels.
So what do you think Trump meant by "drain the swamp"? What type of people were you expecting or hoping he would appoint? I agree with drum that Trump's cabinet is looking quite establishment and swampy.
I am kind of guessing that if they were "establishment / swampy" the Liberals would not be gnashing their teeth so much.
Therefore I assume they are somewhat anti-establishment.
As for swampy... One good thing about the very wealthy is that they may not find "bribe money" from lobbyists and unions nearly as attractive as a struggling mid-level bureaucrat.
So the big question will be do they want more wealth or are they trying achieve self fulfillment / actualization by truly helping others and draining the swamp.
Bill and Melinda Gates are excellent examples of the caring rich.
Part of "drain the swamp" is cutting ties between the lobbyists and the people they serve-- ending the "revolving door" of public service. Trump can do that. The second part is picking people committed to upsetting the accrual of power in Washington, and Trump's pick for HHS and DOE are GREAT examples, committed to repealing Obamacare and reducing the teacher union stranglehold on education, respectively. The third part, which I hope Trump will eventually get to, is passage of the FAIR tax, which should reduce the number of lobbyists in DC by about 75%.
John, interesting that you mention Bill Gates. We always hear from liberals how Bill's dad, at least, wants higher taxes on the rich. Yet Bill, given the opportunity to write a huge check to government, shields his vast fortune in a foundation that he controls, and that does an immense amount of good, far more than government could accomplish with the same wealth.
Post a Comment