It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Jill Stein Makes Recount Filing Deadline in Wisconsin

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Unity_99

To Contest a Presidential Election , which Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party Have Not Done , there would have to be a Recount of Votes In All 50 States . Jill Stein's attempt at Disrupting the Final Results of this Election is Not going to Change the Results .


Not true. It IS NOT a NATIONAL election. It is a series of STATE elections.




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
What utter triggered snowflake twaddle.

Not Jill. The posters in this thread, that is.

Pay for a recount, get a recount. That's how it works in some states. Don't like what's on the books to allow that? Get your s# together, get involved in government, and change it. Vote better, or work to get voted in yourself. This one's really as black and white as it gets.

I don't think the tallies are going to change all that much in one direction or another, but whatever floats the payees' boats here. 'Merkan laws and freedom to use 'em, hooah.
edit on 11/25/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Unity_99

If, in the course of all three recounts, there is evidence of fraud, the results would be thrown out.

I think that's the only way it could work.


After doing some research I'm coming to the same conclusion although admittedly I'm no legal scholar. The basic gist of what I've read is that once an election result has been certified it cannot be "altered". In other words what I'm seeing is that there are only two possible outcomes, 1) the initial result stands or 2) initial results are completely thrown out and a re-vote is held

Hmmm, maybe we can get another debate here before a re-vote ...my god this is ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Nice of you to insult everybody in this thread. Do you have anything of substance to add? Or is your sole purpose here to make an ass out of yourself?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Nyiah

Nice of you to insult everybody in this thread. Do you have anything of substance to add? Or is your sole purpose here to make an ass out of yourself?

I made my point. It's a legal route she took. If you don't LIKE the legal route, get off your ass and make headway to change them.

I'm getting real sick of the people bitching about crap being done within the realm of legal freedom to do so.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   

I will never ever under estimate the lengths that the Clinton machine will go to get power.


I would say the same about trump, putin, and right wing media ideologues. I think the Clinton bogeyman is mostly cooked up by the right wing out of half truths smoke and mirrors.

You guys are habitually on the witch hunt for conspiracies you cook up yourselves. It's fantastic and pathetic at the same time.


edit on 175Friday000000America/ChicagoNov000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Unity_99

To Contest a Presidential Election , which Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party Have Not Done , there would have to be a Recount of Votes In All 50 States . Jill Stein's attempt at Disrupting the Final Results of this Election is Not going to Change the Results .


Well it would if they don't make the deadline and according to this, its highly unlikely they'd have it done in a few weeks when they said normally it would take a month or more and she's requesting it be hand done, which would take even longer:

www.inquisitr.com...


If none of the states are able to certify their vote counts in time for the deadline, which comes six days before the December 19 Electoral College vote, Trump would lose a total of 46 electoral votes, leaving him with 260 — 10 short of the required 270.

Clinton remains at 232, so if the three states all miss the recount deadline, no candidate would possess the required majority and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives to decide, with each state delegation receiving one collective vote. The last time that happened was 1824, when the House picked John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, even though Jackson won the popular vote.


This cited another article:

www.jsonline.com...

Couldn't find the exact match in this latter link where the political scientist gave his 2 bits, as to the electorals being thrown out.

It doesnt make sense that they would be, it would violate the election. It should be onus on the one paying for and counting.

However, knowing the precise law, not just one article's view, or one political scientists view would be helpful. Wonder if there is a legal precedent or a court case about this.
edit on 25-11-2016 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Legal route for what exactly? Nobody has offered a simple explanation of that. She stands to gain or lose nothing in the eyes of the law. This is subversion at best and could border upon treason.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

You're right, we could be chasing Pokeballs and insulting anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you.

I find ATS more entertaining, and at times enlightening.

Maybe give up on the blanket judgements of what people believe? That's like racist or something.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Nyiah

Legal route for what exactly? Nobody has offered a simple explanation of that. She stands to gain or lose nothing in the eyes of the law. This is subversion at best and could border upon treason.

You are not this dense. You can pony up for and get a recount done, legally. She's followed the laws in these states to accomplish that. No skin off my nose, no skin off yours. No one cheated anyone or anything to do so.

What are you afraid of? Finding clear evidence of rigging? If either side is found to have done so, somebody better answer for it. THAT is more treasonous than a goddamn recount is.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The concerning thing is - Soros pulled off this recount by some very shady means.
He must have a reason.
If he could make the recount happen, he could affect the results of the recount.
He has the money to pay off people to change the results or to plant false evidence of fraud.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This is nothing more than a cheap move made by the DNC giving Stein her five minutes of fame.

NOTHING will change.... wish all you want. Your next president is The Honorable Donald J. Trump.

After this election Stein will be forgotten by the majority on both sides... of the DNC and the Republicans.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Nyiah

Legal route for what exactly? Nobody has offered a simple explanation of that. She stands to gain or lose nothing in the eyes of the law. This is subversion at best and could border upon treason.

You are not this dense. You can pony up for and get a recount done, legally. She's followed the laws in these states to accomplish that. No skin off my nose, no skin off yours. No one cheated anyone or anything to do so.

What are you afraid of? Finding clear evidence of rigging? If either side is found to have done so, somebody better answer for it. THAT is more treasonous than a goddamn recount is.


I'm not afraid of anything, and the question still stands...why is she doing this? Oh. .that's right, since there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of rigging, we have to recount all the votes just to be sure there isn't. Gee, it kind of reminds me of something. I can't quite put my finger on it though. WAIT, I KNOW!!! We have to pass the bill to see what's in it.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Depending on whether it can be done in time, and not likely, if the whole states votes, the electoral votes, get tossed.

In other words, no skin of your nose, or the ones who voted for Trump, eh? To steal an election from people is nothing to you apparently on some technical loop hole and deadlines.

I don't believe the votes can get tossed as that would violate the entire election, and anyone could do this and ruin democracies.

The people who voted for Trump did so to get rid of the most dangerous nwo neocon scum on this planet and save this world, close the borders, have other countries follow suit, and basically drain those swamps. As soon as he's sworn in.

edit on 25-11-2016 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Finding clear evidence of rigging, in all three states where recounts occurred, would have the results thrown. That would take Trump below the 270 threshold and the election would be decided by the House of Representatives. The House of Reps would decide between the top 3 candidates, so it could very well go to Hillary.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

And if nothing's found, wee! All's peachy & settled, hunch disproven.

I see no issue with that. I can't fathom having an issue with it no matter who was elected.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

The concerning thing is how conspiracy theorists just rush headlong into witch hunt mode and jump to conclusions without evidence.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Except that, as other members have pointed out, the process isn't complete by Dec. 13th then those electoral votes don't count and the will of 10,000,000 voters is ignored.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Democrats are notorious for rigging elections, there is a high probability of evidence being found, especially when the side contesting the election was doing the rigging!



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Nyiah

Democrats are notorious for rigging elections, there is a high probability of evidence being found, especially when the side contesting the election was doing the rigging!

I'm just going to put this out there so I can say "Told you so" later on.

Vote tallies won't change much, and it'll still be President Trump. I'm a left-leaning Libertarian and I can see that much. If posters are so worried about the odds of Trump being dethroned, then they themselves think he's not as solid in his win as they professed, not me. Hold me to "told ya so", though.




top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join