Nevada potentially could recount

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/

[Bigby]

No wonder I feel like De La Fuente has such a charm, even though I disagree with most of his positions.

[libertpaulian]

Oh brother. 

What's next?  Is Darrell Castle going to request a recount in New Hampshire?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

[Sir Mohamed]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Looking forward to the members of the electoral college bringing an end to the recount nonsense on Dec. 19th.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

[Lincoln Republican]

Recount rules should be changed.

Automatic recounts will still be held if the margin of victory by the winning candidate in the state falls below a certain percentage.

Otherwise, those requesting a recount have to put up $10,000,000.00, minimum, upfront, non-refundable.

Plus, if $10,000,000.00 will not cover the costs, any additional amounts required by the state will have to be paid by those requesting the recount upfront, non-refundable, before any recount begins.

Plus, anybody requesting a recount will have to have two qualified electors per precinct, with legally certified affidavits, requesting a recount, before a recount will begin.

This will cut down drastically on frivolous recounts such as those demanded in 2016.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Recount rules should be changed.

Automatic recounts will still be held if the margin of victory by the winning candidate in the state falls below a certain percentage.

Otherwise, those requesting a recount have to put up $10,000,000.00, minimum, upfront, non-refundable.

Plus, if $10,000,000.00 will not cover the costs, any additional amounts required by the state will have to be paid by those requesting the recount upfront, non-refundable, before any recount begins.

Plus, anybody requesting a recount will have to have two qualified electors per precinct, with legally certified affidavits, requesting a recount, before a recount will begin.

This will cut down drastically on frivolous recounts such as those demanded in 2016.

putting even more money into the political process sure sounds like a good idea

[Alcon]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

[Lincoln Republican]

Recount rules should be changed.

Automatic recounts will still be held if the margin of victory by the winning candidate in the state falls below a certain percentage.

Otherwise, those requesting a recount have to put up $10,000,000.00, minimum, upfront, non-refundable.

Plus, if $10,000,000.00 will not cover the costs, any additional amounts required by the state will have to be paid by those requesting the recount upfront, non-refundable, before any recount begins.

Plus, anybody requesting a recount will have to have two qualified electors per precinct, with legally certified affidavits, requesting a recount, before a recount will begin.

This will cut down drastically on frivolous recounts such as those demanded in 2016.

putting even more money into the political process sure sounds like a good idea

But this is not public money being put up for recounts.  This is private money, money from those promoting the recount and their donors.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

nah

Recount rules should be changed.

Automatic recounts will still be held if the margin of victory by the winning candidate in the state falls below a certain percentage.

Otherwise, those requesting a recount have to put up $10,000,000.00, minimum, upfront, non-refundable.

Plus, if $10,000,000.00 will not cover the costs, any additional amounts required by the state will have to be paid by those requesting the recount upfront, non-refundable, before any recount begins.

Plus, anybody requesting a recount will have to have two qualified electors per precinct, with legally certified affidavits, requesting a recount, before a recount will begin.

This will cut down drastically on frivolous recounts such as those demanded in 2016.

putting even more money into the political process sure sounds like a good idea

But this is not public money being put up for recounts.  This is private money, money from those promoting the recount and their donors.

exactly. private money in the political process is A Problem.

[Lincoln Republican]

But do you not think that if they have to put up front non-refundable high fees for a recount that they would be more unlikely to ask for a recount?

[EnglishPete]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

nah

I'm sure Trump will be delighted with delegitimising the "results" that show that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Remember he's the one disputing the results, not Clinton.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

But do you not think that if they have to put up front non-refundable high fees for a recount that they would be more unlikely to ask for a recount?

yes? i don't see why that should be a goal though

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

nah

I'm sure Trump will be delighted with delegitimising the "results" that show that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Remember he's the one disputing the results, not Clinton.

i was under the impression that clinton was the only one of the two actually involved in a recount process

[Liberalrocks]

the more recounts, the better, imho

[Higgs]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Right out of the dictator playbook, oh the irony.

[Xing]

Something tells me Little Donny won't be too unhappy about a recount in a state that he lost. States that he "lost" were clearly just rigged by Lyin' Crooked $h*tlery.

[Sir Mohamed]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

What’s the use of it expect dividing the country up even further? Whether he won the PV or not, the Trumpster will be prez. With all its powers. I don’t like it, but it’s a fact.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

What’s the use of it expect dividing the country up even further? Whether he won the PV or not, the Trumpster will be prez. With all its powers. I don’t like it, but it’s a fact.

a divided country is better than a unified fascist country

[DavidB.]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

I really cannot take seriously anyone who was worried about Trump not recognizing the election result beforehand (like me!) and now thinks recounts are a good way to "delegitimize the results", implying that is appropriate. So disappointed in some people here.

Some or many of Trump's policies may be bad and should totally be questioned, but he won the election fair and square.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

I really cannot take seriously anyone who was worried about Trump not recognizing the election result beforehand (like me!) and now thinks recounts are a good way to "delegitimize the results", implying that is appropriate. So disappointed in some people here.

Some or many of Trump's policies may be bad and should totally be questioned, but he won the election fair and square.

fascist opposition to a democratic government and opposition to a fascist regime are two morally entirely different things so

[Alcon]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

nah

OK, so a while back, I left a debate with you frustrated, because I felt you have a frequent tendency to do hit-and-run argumentation where you assert a strong opinion, and then refuse to actually justify it in detail when someone calls you on the logic.  Basically, you seem more interested in expressing opinions than defending them.  You thought this was an unfair read of the situation, and I conceded I might have been reading too much into the interchange.

From the last few exchanges I've seen you in, I'm starting to think you were BSing me.  But here's a chance to prove me wrong:

How are these results not legitimate election results?  And, if they are, are you conceding that you're OK with being disingenuous about the legitimacy of a democratic elections because it politically damages someone you think is dangerous?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Since evergreen doesn't want to engage, I will: I don't post on Bad Atlas very often but I lurk and I find this new take of yours to be very irritating because it's totally disingenuous. Considering that Trump is a fascist who has shown little regard for the Constitution, human rights and racial minorities, is it really a mystery that Democrats would want to delegitimize his election?

I'm not sure what "logic" or "reason" would dictate here. Am I supposed to say "ah yes, democracy worked as intended because the interests of the public were made clear at the ballot box,"? The public voted against me in a very personal manner and also voted for a scumbag who is a threat to democracy, liberalism, freedom, tolerance etc. This is what Trump hath wrought and he could mend these attitudes but you cannot run a campaign like he ran over the past two years and expect anyone to respect him. He has destroyed democratic mechanisms which were already crumbling and there's no turning back now. The Rubicon has been crossed and the goal is to resist this Fascist.

To be blunt, no, I don't particularly care whether or not the public legitimately or illegitimately elected a fascist to be President of the United States. Intellectually, the outcome appears to be legitimate to me but my reaction would be the same: do everything in my power to ensure that Trump fails and fails miserably in his quest to plunder, loot and pillage from the American people, and in his quest to turn America into a disturbing Apartheid state. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

It doesn’t change anything. The Trumpster will be prez. Another recount would only drive him nuts on twitter. LOL.

the important thing is to delegitimise the "results" as much as possible

Don't put "results" in square quotes.  You want to delegitimize actual, legitimate election results.  Call it what it is.

nah

OK, so a while back, I left a debate with you frustrated, because I felt you have a frequent tendency to do hit-and-run argumentation where you assert a strong opinion, and then refuse to actually justify it in detail when someone calls you on the logic.  Basically, you seem more interested in expressing opinions than defending them.  You thought this was an unfair read of the situation, and I conceded I might have been reading too much into the interchange.

From the last few exchanges I've seen you in, I'm starting to think you were BSing me.  But here's a chance to prove me wrong:

How are these results not legitimate election results?  And, if they are, are you conceding that you're OK with being disingenuous about the legitimacy of a democratic elections because it politically damages someone you think is dangerous?

both, actually. i strongly believe the election results were tampered with (both quasi-legally by the surge in voter-disenfranchisement laws and more shadily), but even if they weren't, a presidency that fundamentally violates the principles of civilisation and humanity cannot be legitimised (delegitimising one election < allowing the permanent delegitimisation of america as a whole)

this article summarizes some good reasons for the latter:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

can continue this argument when i get home if you want