Jill Stein Surging Recount Costs.

[THE Bigzoman]

#1 isn't an argument, it's slander.
#2 isn't an argument; Trump and his supporters are perfectly free to challenge results in counties or States he feels weren't counted accurately. Literally nothing is stopping him.
#3 isn't an argument, for two reasons. The first is that nobody's accusing the vote of being "hacked". They're double-checking results; it could be a miscount for some technical reason, or a glitch in the automated machines, or the like; they've had issues like that before. And the second is that the FBI has clearly stated that Russian hackers have been poking around voting systems in the USA; http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politi...-cyberattacks/

A recount is a recount; we've been calling it what it is, you folks keep misrepresenting that. Nothing you've stated demonstrates any "lack of integrity", and who cares what the source of funds is? That's completely meaningless in this.

"Calling someone a politician is slander"

[Wolfheart9]

And BEFORE election result, he came out and said he would accept election result unconditionally. Now you liberals are hypocrates

You're not really disproving the fact that he said, multiple times, that he wouldn't accept it, or that we'd have to 'wait and see'. Cool, he said he would at the very end, doesn't change what he said..

- - - Updated - - -

"Calling someone a politician is slander"

Wow you guys are grasping at straws.. calling someone a politician isn't slander. Saying you're dirty simply because you're a politician IS slander.

[Semune]

It's planned from the start.

Have Trump win -barely-, then have Clinton come out and demand recounts, then it will be overturned, Clinton will become president and the Bush/Clinton/Rothschild empire will continue.

If Clinton became president by normal means, she would be the most hated president in history due to the sheer amount of corruption, they had to bring out all the stops, even having Trump run against her to make her seem likeable (still didn't even work, lol).

All the world's a stage, I just sit back and enjoy the show.

[artemishunter1]

#1 isn't an argument, it's slander.
#2 isn't an argument; Trump and his supporters are perfectly free to challenge results in counties or States he feels weren't counted accurately. Literally nothing is stopping him.
#3 isn't an argument, for two reasons. The first is that nobody's accusing the vote of being "hacked". They're double-checking results; it could be a miscount for some technical reason, or a glitch in the automated machines, or the like; they've had issues like that before. And the second is that the FBI has clearly stated that Russian hackers have been poking around voting systems in the USA; http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politi...-cyberattacks/

A recount is a recount; we've been calling it what it is, you folks keep misrepresenting that. Nothing you've stated demonstrates any "lack of integrity", and who cares what the source of funds is? That's completely meaningless in this.

you are only recounting in critical states Trump won, not in Blue States. You do not care about voter integrity, if you did, you would fund recount for whole nation and Voter ID laws.

[THE Bigzoman]

You're not really disproving the fact that he said, multiple times, that he wouldn't accept it, or that we'd have to 'wait and see'. Cool, he said he would at the very end, doesn't change what he said..

- - - Updated - - -



Wow you guys are grasping at straws.. calling someone a politician isn't slander. Saying you're dirty simply because you're a politician IS slander.

No it isn't.

Does the definition of words matter to you at all?

[Wolfheart9]

No it isn't.

Does the definition of words matter to you at all?

Slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed

By saying you are dirty simply because you're a politician, is a defamation, it is an untruth, and it's aimed to harm.

So yes, definitions mean quite a lot to me.

[Endus]

"Calling someone a politician is slander"

No, calling someone a liar with your sole reason being "they're a politician", that is slander.

you are only recounting in critical states Trump won, not in Blue States. You do not care about voter integrity, if you did, you would fund recount for whole nation and Voter ID laws.

This is nonsense that ignores what the process is. Nobody's preventing you doing recounts in other states. Feel free to fund them yourself, if you want them.

[THE Bigzoman]

Slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed

By saying you are dirty simply because you're a politician, is a defamation, it is an untruth, and it's aimed to harm.

So yes, definitions mean quite a lot to me.

It isn't a stretch to say politicians do political things. It's what politicians do.

You can take the argument at face value and point out why it's a faulty one. Or, you can take the low road and dismiss an argument that you find faulty as slander. Stein's damage isn't damaged in the slightest just because someone is suspicious of her motives.

Get real.

[Endus]

Number 2 and 3 are very much valid arguments against her motivations. They don't add up to being "altruistic."

Why, because you say so? No, you haven't given any rationale defending either of those positions, and a cursory glance at the facts demonstrates that they're fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

Of course this isn't "altruistic". It doesn't have to be. You're blaming Stein for something she never claimed to be and was in no way required or expected to be.

[Wolfheart9]

It isn't a stretch to say politicians do political things. It's what politicians do.

You can take the argument at face value and point out why it's a faulty one. Or, you can take the low road and dismiss an argument that you find faulty as slander. Stein's damage isn't damaged in the slightest just because someone is suspicious of her motives.

Get real.

The only one dismissing arguments here is you. I'm 100% in favor of looking into everything that goes on with this mess, but to say that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100% factual, ABSOLUTE, you are a liar and corrupt if you're a politician, is slander.

Seeing as people are jumping on the straw grasping bandwagon though, Imma just back out of this now, and hope the mods have blood pressure medication. God speed.

[THE Bigzoman]

The only one dismissing arguments here is you. I'm 100% in favor of looking into everything that goes on with this mess, but to say that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100% factual, ABSOLUTE, you are a liar and corrupt if you're a politician, is slander.

Seeing as people are jumping on the straw grasping bandwagon though, Imma just back out of this now, and hope the mods have blood pressure medication. God speed.

A faulty argument on a discussion board isn't slander. I'm not sure why you think Gen-OT has those kinds of ramifications outside.

OH BOY @Vamperica. You're like, realllllllly damaging Stein's reputation by posting a potentially faulty argument on WoW General-Off Topic.

Like, holy shit. Slow down.

I think I've read enough hyperbole from this bunch. Good day indeed.

[ControlWarrior]

Why, because you say so? No, you haven't given any rationale defending either of those positions, and a cursory glance at the facts demonstrates that they're fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

Of course this isn't "altruistic". It doesn't have to be. You're blaming Stein for something she never claimed to be and was in no way required or expected to be.

Why have the two major recounts in my lifetime been because a republican candidate won. I understand feeling upset, but at some point everyone needs to move on. I'm pretty sure you denounced Trump when he claimed voting irregularities before the election even occurred. You don't have to enjoy the next four years, but please keep you tin foil hat theories to yourself.

[zerocarbs]

Didn't Stein basically say Hillary would be the next person to start WWIII during her campaign? So uh... what changed?

[THE Bigzoman]

Yes I am blaming Stein for being dishonest about her motivations. Like I said before they don't add up.

- - - Updated - - -

I know right? I am hoping she can get a fund raiser going so she can take me to court.

Man, we're going to have to start YOU a fundraiser. How else are you going to pay for those damages?

[Elegiac]

Who knows with politicians. They shit talk each other one moment, the next they are buddy buddy.

What is a representative supposed to do when public opinion shifts, exactly?

[Elegiac]

Tell everyone how they have always supported the new popular idea!

Right, so - your complaint isn't that politicians are 'liars', it's that they are representing their people too well.

[ControlWarrior]

What is a representative supposed to do when public opinion shifts, exactly?

What is she a representative of anyways? 3-5% of the voting bloc? Give me a break.

[THE Bigzoman]

What is she a representative of anyways? 3-5% of the voting bloc? Give me a break.

1% to be specific.

[Elegiac]

What is she a representative of anyways? 3-5% of the voting bloc? Give me a break.

Clearly that's enough to front several million dollars for electoral fees, in this case.

[zerocarbs]

So I just had to look this up and sure enough it's pretty much how I remembered.



It's okay Jill, I'm not sure I couldn't be bought for a few million dollars either.