Nevada potentially could recount

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the more recounts, the better, imho

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

both, actually. i strongly believe the election results were tampered with (both quasi-legally by the surge in voter-disenfranchisement laws and more shadily),

Really?  Why do you believe that?

largely gut feeling, i'll admit. trump's scramble to block the recounts, especially, even though he himself claimed that millions of people voted illegally and neither his nor the taxpayers' resources are beïng used, is incredibly suspicious, and the long republican record of election fraud speaks for itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not automatically, but in conjunction with, well, everything else about this year…