Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes

[joshua 1 9]

This is kind of scary. I would hate to think that the Electoral College could, if they so desired, flout the desires of God himself.

What would be scary is if people remained in deception and did not come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

These people aren't as stupid or as gullible as you may think they are.

The point is that the state of California gives a driver's license to illegal aliens. When they get their license they are registered to vote. In some California elections it is legal for them to vote. It is not legal for them to vote in Federal elections for the president. Although the belief was that they needed to stop Trump because he was going to deport them.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

What would be scary is if people remained in deception and did not come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

So we DEFINITELY need someone like Trump in charge of our country. A man who almost always spoke in untruths during the campaign. I can see how God will be able to use him.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

The point is that the state of California gives a driver's license to illegal aliens. When they get their license they are registered to vote.

This is false:
FALSE: California Passed a Law Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Vote in Federal Elections

In some California elections it is legal for them to vote.

Support this claim. Please show me where they are allowed to vote.

 

[TheBear]

Wisconsin's historic presidential recount ended Monday resulting in a net gain of 131 votes for President-elect Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, the Wisconsin Elections Commission said.

The recount resulted in a net increase of 837 ballots for a total of 2.976 million. Clinton and Trump added 1,557 votes to their totals. The last statewide recount in a 2011 Supreme Court race resulted in a net change of 312 votes for the top two candidates out of 1.5 million ballots cast.

Trump gained 844 votes from the recount and Clinton gained 713 votes. Trump won the state by 22,748 votes.

Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes

It needs to be recounted again ..... and again, until we get the results we want.

 

[Armoured]

It needs to be recounted again ..... and again, until we get the results we want.

So, like the Benghazi enquiries?

 

[Armoured]

Yes, one Canadian voted in Arizona...or tried to before the voter registration was rejected by the registrar's office. The Canadian claimed she was allowed to vote in an undisclosed Eastern state. The gall of those Canadians!

With their hockey hullabaloo...

 

[aachen_hexagon]

So, like the Benghazi enquiries?

Yup. Or attempts to overturn the ACA.

Funny how Conservatives didn't see those "show votes" as a waste of tax payer dollars. (And even when everyone KNEW the vote would never achieve anything...wholly for show, wholly a waste of time and money. But Conservatives saw it as a "good" thing.)

 

[LouisBooth]

[Staff edit] I think it's pretty funny that the current recounts are going the way of Trump. Just another example of the democrats refusal to accept the loss. It was the Russians! Let's do a recount!

I'm also curious about the stories coming out of Detroit.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

[Staff edit]

I think it's pretty funny that the current recounts are going the way of Trump. Just another example of the democrats refusal to accept the loss. It was the Russians! Let's do a recount!

Unlike the GOP who spent the last 20 years telling us every single Democratic victory was due to illegals voting or voter ID fraud.

 

[LouisBooth]

Unlike the GOP who spent the last 20 years telling us every single Democratic victory was due to illegals voting or voter ID fraud.

Unlike the GOP who spent the last 20 years telling us every single Democratic victory was due to illegals voting or voter ID fraud.

LOL. Elected officials have been moving to the republican side recently, have they not? I don't accept your statement, but based on it you can conclude they learned from their mistake and corrected it. So like I said, let democrats live in ignorance and I'll adopt your statement and say for the next 20 years, I'd be happy to accept the democratic party whining about hacking by the Russians as the GOP wins. I'll just laugh as apparently you insinuate the democrats did.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

LOL. Elected officials have been moving to the republican side recently, have they not? I don't accept your statement

-sigh- You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the news once in a while or look around:

Poll: 60% of Republicans believe illegal immigrants vote; 43% believe people vote using dead people’s names

Election fraud: Donald Trump falsely claims 'millions' of illegal votes cost him popular vote - CNNPolitics.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784185322288603136

I'd be happy to accept the democratic party whining about hacking by the Russians as the GOP wins. I'll just laugh as apparently you insinuate the democrats did.

If the GOP doesn't care about the whole Russia thing, then they should be honest and drop the demands for voter ID laws. Voter fraud has never been found to be a significant issue, but we DO KNOW it will disenfranchise poor and minority groups. So either the GOP needs to get HONEST about what they want with voter id laws (disenfranchisement of poor and minorities) or they should back ANY AND ALL INVESTIGATIONS of potential voter fraud, no matter how marginal. That's what they've been doing for years.

 

[LouisBooth]

You don't have to take my word for it.

All recent. I believe you said, "the last 20 years". I'll wait on your evidence from the late 80s and 90s.

As far as voter ID laws, I don't accept your premise that it disenfranchises poor and minority groups anymore then picking up foodstamps or unemployment, disability or any other government service.

I see no problem with voter ID to vote. This cleans up any graft or problems in the system no matter how insignificant. I'm surprised democrats don't adhere to this based on their recent, "every vote counts" mentality, otherwise you can do away with their recount efforts and popular vote mandate argument as hypocrisy.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

All recent. I believe you said, "the last 20 years". I'll wait on your evidence from the late 80s and 90s.

-sigh- This is too easy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/u...r-fraud-became-a-political-strategy.html?_r=0

As far as voter ID laws, I don't accept your premise that it disenfranchises poor and minority groups anymore then picking up foodstamps or unemployment, disability or any other government service.

You don't have to accept my analysis. Again, reading something other than Breitbart comes in handy once in a while:

An actual study:
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/VoterIDLawsSuppressionofMinorityVoters.pdf

A Court ruling:
Voter ID laws are discriminatory efforts to disenfranchise voters, courts rule

An analysis:
Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

I see no problem with voter ID to vote. This cleans up any graft or problems in the system no matter how insignificant

It's the "no matter how insignificant" part that is important. That means you should CELEBRATE the recent recount. IF there was even a CHANCE there was hacking of the vote then you should want that recount. Even if your guy won.

OTHERWISE it looks like you only support one statistically unlikely form of vote fraud investigation vs the other and the big difference is....

 

[LouisBooth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/u...r-fraud-became-a-political-strategy.html?_r=0

Apparently not easy enough, Nothing in this article from the 80s or 90s. What's funny is that one of the older issues was started by democrats and the republicans responded it to, thus showing it was mostly a democratic party issue. Still waiting.

Again, reading something other than Breitbart comes in handy once in a while:

LOL. I'd say the same to you about reading vox or slate. FYI, I don't read Breitbart. [Staff edit]

A Court ruling:

I don't see your point here? The lower courts said it was not, the appeals said it was and the supreme court hasn't decided. Sorry, your evidence here is invalid.

An analysis:

LOL. One example in the millions that live in Texas is definitive? Really stretching here. Getting an ID is quite simple, just like getting any government service. Next you'll tell me it's hard for blacks, Latinos an the poor to get food stamps LOL.


"we have relatively little empirical data on the consequences of these laws. "--from your paper citation. What's funny is WE DO. When the law was stuck down despite the evidence by the appeals court.

Study: North Carolina Minority Vote Turnout Increased After Stronger Election Integrity Measures Implemented - Judicial Watch

 

[JGG]

Oh, I forgot to vote in Wisconsin!

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Apparently not easy enough, Nothing in this article from the 80s or 90s.

Hate to have to do the reading for people: "The Republican focus on voter fraud dates to the late 1990s, "

(Read it again).

LOL. I'd say the same to you about reading vox or slate. FYI, I don't read Breitbart.

I was trying to think of a conservative site that one had to read (it would be hard to say read Fox but I guess maybe you can read their webpage). Hopefully you read it closer than on here.

[Staff edit]

I don't see your point here? The lower courts said it was not, the appeals said it was and the supreme court hasn't decided. Sorry, your evidence here is invalid.

Check again: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

LOL. One example in the millions that live in Texas is definitive? Really stretching here. Getting an ID is quite simple, just like getting any government service. Next you'll tell me it's hard for blacks, Latinos an the poor to get food stamps LOL.

If you can't read evidence or at least address the points (I could provide other data but I grow bored doing all the reading for you), I am afraid I can't help you.

 

[LouisBooth]

The Republican focus on voter fraud dates to the late 1990s

and listed only things from the 2000s.

Check again:

You really need to read closer. It's the court of appeals, not the supreme court. It says, "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT " right at the top lol.

If you can't read evidence or at least address the points

I addressed the point quite clearly. It lists ONE person, and then goes on to make assumptions on the WHOLE. Great for an emotional piece, but hardly evidence to prove your point. I showed you very easy evidence that counters your point quite well and you have yet to address it.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

and listed only things from the 2000s.

They state that the GOP's actions date back to the 90's (I will grant it doesn't say 80's, my bad).

You really need to read closer. It's the court of appeals, not the supreme court. It says, "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT " right at the top lol.

Why does it matter if it's the court of appeals?

 

[LouisBooth]

They state that the GOP's actions date back to the 90's (I will grant it doesn't say 80's, my bad).

and offered NO evidence to back up their baseless claim.

Why does it matter if it's the court of appeals?

For several reasons. The furthermost being that it's not the finals say. The supreme court often over turns the appeals court.

I see you also totally ignore the link I presented to you. No comment? It refutes your argument completely.