Thread: The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts


By Richard Baehr



The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time Pthis happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._recounts.html

http://www.alipac.us/f8/24-hours-pre...t-plan-340962/

This is not the first time this has happened in the U.S. The only time we hear about getting rid of the electoral vote is when it happens against a certain party then is soon forgotten. Makes one wonder; Stein has no chance for wining so what is behind her reasoning? I still smell Sorro's money trying to create problems here in the U.S. Like a bunch of small children that couldn't get their own way and now want to cause more problems. No one seems to be able to grasp that the main stream media had this election all wrong.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

Wow. This could get really complicated, so Trump was right, the system is rigged, either way you go. Democrats flood polls with illegal aliens and other non-citizens voting in California, New York, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, then challenge the count in rust belt states they lose, then drag their feet, miss the deadlines and push it to the US House of Representatives.

Well, Trump will win in the US House of Representatives and Pence will win in the US Senate, if that's how it's done, and the Americans in 30 states and significant numbers of other Americans in the other 20 will still have our victory, a Trump Presidency.

Jill Stein has shown her colors and Hillary has shown her butt and the Democrats have proved beyond any doubt, the Democratic Party is rotten to the core.

If this is really about the integrity of the election results, why didn't Stein pull this stunt right after the Trump was elected? She waited until the last minute to do this. There's something very fishy about this.

Was Stein encouraged by the Hillary campaign to do this with the promise that they would join in after she started the ball rolling? The only reason I say this is because I see no advantage for Stein in stretching the process out. Hmm, just thinking out load .....

It was a way to draw attention to herself taking advantage of the weak vulnerable people who were disappointed with the Hillary loss, you know, the crying women, performers and young people.

Originally Posted by MW

Was Stein encouraged by the Hillary campaign to do this with the promise that they would join in after she started the ball rolling? The only reason I say this is because I see no advantage for Stein in stretching the process out. Hmm, just thinking out load .....

You may be right. There's probably more going on there than meets the eye.