True count

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know the sentence was really short...and also wrong...i pointed it out for you but since you can't read and your assistant hasn't seemed to read it to you it seems you can't figure it out yourself. Go back and try again...I'll wait...

a reply to: RickyD

What part of this is incorrect?

What recounts? Most of the states that are close don't even have to grant one.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of it...try having your assistant comprehend what they read to you...have them reread the link I left from WSJ or you could try reading this one which also spells out quite a few states recount laws and procedures.

PDF for your P.A. to read you =)

a reply to: RickyD

Actually it's entirely correct, the link you provided shows that mandatory recounts aren't available for all states, that permission also needs to be granted in those states and that some of those states might not even matter anyway.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are available for many states...in fact some states also offer the ability to challenge the count to their voters too. As long as the challenges are following state procedure.

You must not have paid attention at Nevada.

At this point I have to believe your just being silly.

originally posted by: RickyD
They are available for many states...in fact some states also offer the ability to challenge the count to their voters too. As long as the challenges are following state procedure.

Many =/= all. When I say 'not all' that = 'not all' which =/= 'all'. Follow?

You must not have paid attention at Nevada.

At this point I have to believe your just being silly.

I specifically mentioned one state and it wasn't Nevada, maybe you need to pay attention to what I actually say instead of what you think you want me to say.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You said most states where it is close don't have to grant a request to recount...that is not true. All the close states that I know of have recount procedures that determine when recounts happen...a lot of them have more than just automatic recounts when the race is close. Therefore the statement that most states which are close races do not have to grant recounts is untrue.

originally posted by: RickyD
You said most states where it is close don't have to grant a request to recount...that is not true.

I also said in this thread that many won't be useful or they wouldn't meet thresholds but if you feel like focusing on that knock yourself out.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just don't think you like being called out and proven wrong carrying an ego so big...but whatever floats your boat bud.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Even if he wins Arizona though he can’t make 270

Not u ntil he flips GA, PA, MI and WI... which will happen sometime on the next few weeks.

Unless the fundamental laws of mathematics don’t apply to trump

Of course they do, but they also take into account Supreme Court rulings disqualifying huge numbers of illegal ballots.

originally posted by: RickyD
I just don't think you like being called out and proven wrong carrying an ego so big...but whatever floats your boat bud.

Are you saying I didn't bring up those points?

ballotpedia.org...

State by state breakdown on electoral recounts, as well as links to relevant laws.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: RickyD
You said most states where it is close don't have to grant a request to recount...that is not true.

I also said in this thread that many won't be useful or they wouldn't meet thresholds but if you feel like focusing on that knock yourself out.

Ga hand recount and audit.
Wi recount
Pa pending case in supreme court, violated orders, 10 states ag's submit amicus against pa in case before the supreme court.

Man your comment and reallity diverged so quickly my head snapped. Keep hoping against reallity while the constitutional process plays out.

Remember that 12/8 deadline I talked about earlier in my "word salad"? Tick tock, tick tock.....

Wi, pa, ga,

All in the air now and many more to come.

Sure hope you don't end up eating even more crow.

There is no president elect until or after 12/14/2020. Fact!

No state has certified their count or sent their electors to congress. Fact!

States to watch as we aproach the safe harbour deadline.

Arizona
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
North Carolina
Georgia

Sit back and relax as the constitutional process plays out at the state level up to 12/08/2020. Then sometime between 12/14/2020 and 01/20/21 we will have our president elect.

No matter who is sworn in 1/20/21 there is going to be plenty enough problems this nation has to tackle to keep whoever is president busy without them having to deal with any question of their legitimacy.

The media's desire to paint any party interested in the constitutional process playing out prior to declaring a winner while also declaring Biden the president elect is a telling sign to me.

The fact that so many people are willing to dismiss any claim of voting irregularities as mere desperate partisan fantasy while every day new evidence is coming out is telling as well.

I think we all know what happened but half of us still think they can ignore reallity because a fantasy is much more appealing. Come 01/20/2021 we as a nation will find out which half that is.

Until then it is game on and to the Victor's go the spoils, but after 01/20/2021 we need to all agree to disagree and start solving real problems.

No matter who wins we can not face another 4 years of a presidential administration whos very legitimacy is publicly questioned and put in doubt.

This nation can not survive another 4 years of political violence and social unrest. That is why no matter who is sworn in come 01/20/2021, I will proudly proclaim they are my president.

That is America baby we are supposed to be able to have elections resolve our political differences. We are supposed to except election results. We are supposed to come together regardless of our differences to ensure we thrive as a nation.

For the past 4 years we have failed, and if that becomes normalized in America we will only continue down a road that leads to our nations demize.

A house devided against itself can not stand!

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
Wi recount

Wisconsin is out of the recount threshold and doesn't have to grant one.

Pa pending case in supreme court, violated orders, 10 states ag's submit amicus against pa in case before the supreme court.

There's no pending case, it was an order to segregate ballots. Amicus briefs are useless, they aren't going to change Pennsylvania election law.

Man your comment and reallity diverged so quickly my head snapped.

The head snapping could be the cause of getting this stuff wrong.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The wi canvas has to be completed before the recount can be officially requested but the administration has already said they will be requesting one.

www.google.com...://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/wisconsin-ballot-recount-what-does-it-mean-trump-ca mpaign-recount-mail-in-ballots-what-happens-next-fact-check-2020-elections/65-4dafccc6-2dd8-411a-b7d9-e03dca82c461&ved=2ahUKEwjV9ZuDsvvsAhXCoFsKHQt2A- QQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0hC7HjsDvWzsuEk4WVRL_W&cf=1

Reuters article on states ag's requesting supreme court hear case involving pa mail in ballots.

www.google.com...://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN27P2V0&ved=2ahUKEwjh4dz4sPvsAhVaGDQIHcf1D1MQ0PADegQ IARAX&usg=AOvVaw2JQu5YgTtji10Oq86cjtam

The state of pa failed to suquester those ballots as ordered by the court, so a violation of court order and 10 state ag's asking the court to take the case in which their order was violated.

Yep definatly a nothing burger.

Man this intellectual contortion routine is funny.

"Nov. 6, 2020: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary order in the Supreme Court case requiring Pennsylvania to segregate ballots that arrived after Election Day. The Trump campaign filed a motion on Nov. 4 to join the Supreme Court challenge to Pennsylvania’s deadline extension for late-arriving mail-in ballots. A petition for a writ of certiorari is currently being considered."

Notice the phrase in the first sentence temporary order in the supreme court case!

Link to quote as well as all pending recount and legal challenges to date:

epochtimes.today...

Watch as the list grows, but remember to repeat the mantra nothing to see here.

Bwahahahaha.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Wisconsin is out of the recount threshold and doesn't have to grant one.

Heavy.com

“There have been reports of irregularities in several Wisconsin counties which raise serious doubts about the validity of the results. The President is well within the threshold to request a recount and we will immediately do so,”

According to Wolfe, there is a statutory recount process that holds that the aggrieved party seeking the recount has to be one of the top two vote getters. They can seek a recount if the margin of victory is within 1%. According to Wolfe, the candidate must cover the cost if the margin is between .26% and 1%. The state will pay the cost for any recount if the margin of victory is .25% or less.

ABC7NY

With 100% of precincts reporting, ABC News reported that Biden held about a .5% lead over President Donald Trump in Wisconsin. At last count, Biden was leading the total vote count with 1,630,389 to Trump's 1,609,879 votes, a difference of a little more than 20,000 votes

Bit of disinfo going on - links provided say wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
The wi canvas has to be completed before the recount can be officially requested but the administration has already said they will be requesting one.

And it doesn't have to be granted.

Reuters article on states ag's requesting supreme court hear case involving pa mail in ballots.

That's not a Supreme Court ruling, that's Alito's circuit instructions.

a reply to: Phoenix

None of what you posted disputes that Wisconsin doesn't have mandatory recounts or has to grant one, it says it right there in your source.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Knew you'd come back later to get the last word...your ego wouldn't allow you to ignore it.

a reply to: RickyD

I see you didn't answer the question.