Jill Stein seeks recount. by David A. Schwinghammer
Last edited: Saturday, November 26, 2016
Posted: Friday, November 25, 2016
Do we need a recount in close races in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?
Jill Stein is soliciting money and support for a recount in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (although Michigan has not conceded as of yet). You could say her campaign is justified because Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 1,700,00 votes and Trump won Pennsylvania by under 30,000 as he did in Wisconsin (and we know who's the governor of Wisconsin, Mr. College Dropout). Pennsylvania is an interesting case. Hillary led all night until she fell behind by 2,000 votes with 97% of the vote counted. These votes were coming from the west and south central Pennsylvania (You'd think she would have done quite well in Pittsburgh; she killed in most of the major cities. Were blacks discouraged from voting?). James Carville has referred to south central Pennsylvania as Pennsylbama. So . . . who's running the polls in those areas? Did Hillary get a fair count? Did the election officials turn in the correct totals? Another reason a recount is justified is because the DNC was hacked by the Russians, who are Trump friendly. I read a ridiculous statement in the paper this morning that claimed 90% of Russians think Trump will be the greatest American president ever. Gag me with a snow shovel. He picked Bannon as his principal adviser. Why not David Duke? Okay the odds aren't good, but would Trump have asked for a recount if he'd needed those electoral votes? You bet your sweet bippy. I'm hearing some threats about the possibility of a Civil War if the election is overturned. If that happens, at least we'd get rid of a couple of thousand gun nuts in the process. I'm betting on the ATF, the FBI (they already know who you are) and the National Guard.
Those recounts (audits) need to go forward. We don't need another situation like Al Gore faced in Florida.
I read today that the Russians mounted a concerted fake news campaign in favor of Trump. I also read that the people that believed the fake news were largely already Trump followers because those news items readily fit into the mindset of the readers. And then they were passed on using social media and became viral.
On the other hand, when those items were sent to liberals, they were almost immediately exposed and died without going viral. The way that conservatives look at conspiratorial information is entirely different than those with better critical thinking ability.
it has been a strange, historical, election cycle
I read today that the Russians mounted a concerted fake news campaign in favor of Trump. I also read that the people that believed the fake news were largely already Trump followers because those news items readily fit into the mindset of the readers. And then they were passed on using social media and became viral.
On the other hand, when those items were sent to liberals, they were almost immediately exposed and died without going viral. The way that conservatives look at conspiratorial information is entirely different than those with better critical thinking ability.
Ron
Love ya!
Jane