Politics Official recount thread

[MARIS61]

Stein just sold out, like Warren and Sanders did. Schumer is Hillary in pants.

The left has no leaders left. And they still don't know they're being played.

Looks like 8 years of Trump.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

"Look kids, the turkey was pregnant!"

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

On the contrary, they do have reasons. First, as has been suggested, to keep their name in the news. Second, to find new sources of money, which they need.
Chances are that the money for this effort is not coming from the usual Green party donors (because there aren't many, and a recount doesn't save the whales).
But some people with money do want the Greens to do this, and there exists the possibility that the Greens can go back to those sources for more cash later.
Building a relationship with people who have money to give away is a logical political strategy.

barfo

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahhahahaha o sit, just broke the button for the letter after g.

instead, lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

A recount is part of the process. So calm down, if your so sure Trump is the Victor, then results of the recount will show the same. No reason to get riled up.

Don't really care, not riled up at all. I don't give a sit.

 

[barfo]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahhahahaha o sit, just broke the button for the letter after g.

instead, lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

So what's your theory of reality here? The greens are doing a recount because ______ ?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

For what, less than 3 months? Continuing to spread the misinformation about the "60 votes" is pretty sad, actually.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/di...have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

First hundred days.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[barfo]

NO! IT'S MY TOY AND YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH IT!

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[barfo]

I like that he almost made a cogent argument there, and then decided to throw in California, as if he realized the tweet lacked sufficient insanity.

"and the tadpoles! They swim up your nose and lay eggs!"

barfo

 

[julius]

First hundred days.

did you read either of those articles? he didn't even have it for the first hundred days.

 

[riverman]

If you're going to drain the swamp....there's nothing wrong with double checking the system that created the swamp. I want it to be accountable. I don't see it changing the election result one bit but if the system is "rigged"....Donald should have no trouble with it....he's the guy who's supposed to make all this right isn't he? Hillary nor the Dems started this recount..that's not even an issue. Stein is trying to make a noise....she should have tried much, much earlier.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If illegals have voted they should be prosecuted and deported.

If that is a real concern there should be an audit of the voting records in every state.

If you're going to run around screaming fire in a crowed theater you had also better call the fire department.

 

[blue32]

If illegals have voted they should be prosecuted and deported.

If that is a real concern there should be an audit of the voting records in every state.

If you're going to run around screaming fire in a crowed theater you had also better call the fire department.

When you don't have to show ID in some states to vote I am sure there is a little of that going on. In any case I am sure that if it is happening it's favoring democrats over repubs since the majority of them vote D. Ultimately I think any recount or validation is going to hurt the Dems more. IMO.

 

[barfo]

When you don't have to show ID in some states to vote I am sure there is a little of that going on. In any case I am sure that if it is happening it's favoring democrats over repubs since the majority of Americans vote D. Ultimately I think any recount or validation is going to hurt the Dems more. IMO.

FTFY.

barfo

 

[julius]

If illegals have voted they should be prosecuted and deported.

If that is a real concern there should be an audit of the voting records in every state.

If you're going to run around screaming fire in a crowed theater you had also better call the fire department.

Especially since finding that there was some kind of voter fraud/illegal voting, it would totally help make his case for the wall stronger.

 

[Denny Crane]

did you read either of those articles? he didn't even have it for the first hundred days.

He did.

They wheeled out Now Dead Ted to vote, even.

60 votes from April 28, 2009 through August 25, 2009 and then again from September 25 through Jan 19 2010.

Democrats passed a massive waste of money spending bill ($800B down the drain) and ObamaCare using that supermajority (a 60-39 vote, in fact).

 

[oldfisherman]

Not sure what the big deal is. Think of the recount as an audit.

All important counting and accounting processes should be audited on a regular basis. How else would we know the system is accurate and without fraud?

 

[dviss1]

Obama had 60 democrat votes in the senate, a majority in the House.

Even with Republicans refusing to vote for ObamaCare, they 60 votes proved enough to break the filibuster and enact the terrible law.

Not my fault if the inexperience proved itself in that awful social program and failure to do even more damage to the nation.

Stop. Just stop.

You can't count corporate shills like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. You forget the Scott Brown election.

Nancy Pelosi passed 450+ bills that never saw the light of day in the senate due to Republican filibusters or threat of one.

So just stop.

 

[dviss1]

He did.

They wheeled out Now Dead Ted to vote, even.

60 votes from April 28, 2009 through August 25, 2009 and then again from September 25 through Jan 19 2010.

Democrats passed a massive waste of money spending bill ($800B down the drain) and ObamaCare using that supermajority (a 60-39 vote, in fact).

Bull. Arlen Specter? Once Scott Brown was elected he never got the 60 seat majority back and Republicans were lock step in their notion to make him a 1 termer.

 

[dviss1]

Republicans have magically, mystically turned 72 days into two full years.

We’ve heard it over and over and over again. Mitch McConnell has gleefully used it as a cudgel. Congressional Republicans typically can’t wait to get their mugs on camera to tell America just how inept Congressional Democrats are in order to aid their case that they should be put back in power. After all, Democrats couldn’t get anything done even with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate during the first two years of the Obama administration. Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress to go with the newly inaugurated Democrat to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and they couldn’t manage to address the major issues of the day.

Democrats are just plain horrible at their jobs. To hear the Republicans tell it, absolutelynothing got done between January 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections. And they blame the Democrats, because after all, the Democrats were in control.

Don’t believe it.

It sounds good and it surely gets the far right wing base riled up. But it has very little basis in reality. That hasn’t stopped Republicans and their official media apparatus, Fox News, from repeating the nonsense.

As recently as September 2nd, less than two weeks ago, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, conducting an interview with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stated matter of factly in response to Villaraigosa’s comment on the deliberate Republican obstructionism that Obama and the Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress. “But in fairness,” Wallace pointed out, “the first two years, he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a big majority in the House.”

Illinois Republican Congressman Aaron Schock earlier in 2012 went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and perpetuated the lie. “For two years,” he told the “Morning Joe” crew, “he (Obama) had complete, unadulterated control of the federal government, a 60 seat majority in the Senate, an 60 plus seat majority in the House. He got every—literally every—piece of legislation he wanted to try and quote turn around the economy…”

That’s right folks, for the first two full years of his presidency, Barack Obama had the benefit of a large majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate to work with in order to get whatever legislation passed that he wanted. Whatever his whimsy, he could get it passed at any time during the first two years of his first term. Full and complete, total control for two full years, if by two full years you mean 72 days.

Here’s what really happened: Yes, in the 2008 election, Democrats managed to widen their majorities in both houses of Congress. In the 110th Congress that served from January 2007 through January 2009, Democrats held a 35 seat majority in the House and a single seat advantage in the Senate, which included “independent” Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom caucused with the Democrats. The 2008 election saw that majority swell to 78 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.

How is that possible, you ask? Everybody says that the Democrats had a full filibuster-proof majority? The math doesn’t add up, you say. If there are 100 seats in the Senate, and Republicans, as of January 2009 had only 40 of them (technically the Republicans had 41 of them initially, but we’ll get to that), doesn’t that mean that the Democrats had the remaining 60, giving them the supermajority in the Senate?

No, not necessarily, because it was a very odd year in Congressional politics.

Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever,resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months afterthe 111th Congress had taken charge.

And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Stop. Just stop.

You can't count corporate shills like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. You forget the Scott Brown election.

Nancy Pelosi passed 450+ bills that never saw the light of day in the senate due to Republican filibusters or threat of one.

So just stop.

January 2009:
61-39 Obama's $800B emergency stimulus bill passed . 59 democrats, including Arlen Spector, who switched parties. The 60th was presumed to be the actual clown from SNL in Minnesota.

December 2009:
60-39, ObamaCare passed. All 60 supermajority votes. 60 democrats.


You stop.

No amount of excuses make the 60 votes not true. They voted as a bloc.

I never said they had control with 60 votes for 2 years.

Republicans might because Scott Brown voted with Democrats enough to get them their 60 votes.

 

[jlprk]

I never said they had control with 60 votes for 2 years.

You have said so in other threads many times. To me specifically, about 3-4 times. It shut me up then. Dviss is handling your half-truths better than I can.

 

[Denny Crane]

You have said so in other threads many times. To me specifically, about 3-4 times. It shut me up then. Dviss is handling your half-truths better than I can.

Nope.

You're making stuff up now.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

On the contrary, they do have reasons. First, as has been suggested, to keep their name in the news. Second, to find new sources of money, which they need.
Chances are that the money for this effort is not coming from the usual Green party donors (because there aren't many, and a recount doesn't save the whales).
But some people with money do want the Greens to do this, and there exists the possibility that the Greens can go back to those sources for more cash later.
Building a relationship with people who have money to give away is a logical political strategy.

barfo

We might both be wrong. I read somewhere that they might be taking in more money than needed and not inclined to give it back. So going back for money in the future might not be why, they're getting it now.

She supposedly raised 3 million for her entire campaign and now raised more in a few days.....

It is still fishy no matter what they say publicly.

 

[dviss1]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Odd, I missed the tweet where he said anything about the recounts other than that they would be fruitless wastes of money.

 

[barfo]

We might both be wrong. I read somewhere that they might be taking in more money than needed and not inclined to give it back. So going back for money in the future might not be why, they're getting it now.

She supposedly raised 3 million for her entire campaign and now raised more in a few days.....

It is still fishy no matter what they say publicly.

Well, they'll need more money later no matter how much they collect now. But yes, I'm sure they are hoping/planning to not spend all the money collected on recounts.

Not sure what's fishy about it. I suppose if Hillary or her campaign or the DNC donated the money to the Greens, that might be pretty fishy. I'm guessing it was more likely donors who normally donate to the Democrats. Because, who else would donate for this?

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Well, they'll need more money later no matter how much they collect now. But yes, I'm sure they are hoping/planning to not spend all the money collected on recounts.

Not sure what's fishy about it. I suppose if Hillary or her campaign or the DNC donated the money to the Greens, that might be pretty fishy. I'm guessing it was more likely donors who normally donate to the Democrats. Because, who else would donate for this?

barfo

It smells, but I don't really care. Someone is making money one way or the other.