If as according to this article the complaint was limited to absentee ballots shouldn't the recount also be limited to absentee ballots, unless it results in a different outcome, in which case other vote forms should be looked at too.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Why isn’t the Corrupt News Network asking to see her evidence?
2 posted on
11/27/2016 3:39:22 PM PST by
FlingWingFlyer
(As long as tyranny exists, the Constitution and Bill of Right will never be "outdated" or "obsolete")
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Are bogus ballots submitted by someone other than the registered voters something checked by a recount, or in Jill Stein asking for the wrong remedy to the suspected problem?
3 posted on
11/27/2016 3:40:33 PM PST by
Pollster1
("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
I allege that Jill Stein is an alien pod who was placed here by Satan to destroy the American Republic. I think I can find more evidence to back my premise than she can her bogus hacking story where there is absolutely no corroberative evidence.
What say your FREEPERS?
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Explain why they only did it to these three states, Jill.
6 posted on
11/27/2016 3:40:56 PM PST by
Secret Agent Man
( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
That is a rather specious claim.
You cannot vote absentee unless you request an absentee ballot. How would hackers know ahead of time who voted and who didn’t, and then request absentee ballots for the non-voters?
If there were ballots introduced fraudulently into the election (and I have no doubt that some were), they almost certainly are Hillary votes. So, if a recount could determine which ballots those are, the overall total would change in favor of Trump.
7 posted on
11/27/2016 3:41:21 PM PST by
exDemMom
(Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Proof, Jill? None exists. I see.
8 posted on
11/27/2016 3:41:29 PM PST by
Secret Agent Man
( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Foreigners do not CARE about our election, unless she means Soros helped out Hillary...that I could believe.
9 posted on
11/27/2016 3:42:10 PM PST by
madison10
(Almost disenfranchised Michigander.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
“alleging that foreign hackers could have skewed the result”
That’s pretty weak.
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
The woman has no vested interest in the recount at all.
Only those who have a possibility of winning by way of a recount should be allowed to request one.
This is clearly foul play.
11 posted on
11/27/2016 3:42:51 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(jcon40, "Are we be coming into the age of Sanity?")
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
The only people who do this kind of crap in WI are democrats.
12 posted on
11/27/2016 3:43:11 PM PST by
Secret Agent Man
( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
This is from The Guardian.
Fake news.
13 posted on
11/27/2016 3:43:12 PM PST by
Flycatcher
(God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Hackers filed bogus absentee ballots? What drug is this woman on? She’s a whack job. I’m seeing a lot of people online who say they voted for her and they wish they had a do-over!
14 posted on
11/27/2016 3:43:14 PM PST by
Genoa
(Luke 12:2)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
I don’t know how you can prove this. All those variables and suppositions.
15 posted on
11/27/2016 3:43:54 PM PST by
combat_boots
(God bless Israel and all who protect and defend her! And please, God, bless the USA again.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
The fifth-column leftist media ignores Trump’s claims that the election was rigged.
But when an environazi claims the same thing, the leftist media treated it as fact.
This recount will be more idiotic than the hanging chads in Florida, and expect the case to go to SCOTUS again.
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Off the top of my head, I can think of several variables, the provability of which all come down to whether Stein can prove an absentee ballot is bogus. I have no idea how you can do that.
23 posted on
11/27/2016 3:48:43 PM PST by
combat_boots
(God bless Israel and all who protect and defend her! And please, God, bless the USA again.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
How can this be?
We've been told, ad nauseam, that vote fraud does not occur/is not possible.
26 posted on
11/27/2016 3:51:01 PM PST by
Arm_Bears
(Rope. Tree. Politician/Journalist. Some assembly required.)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
And just how do you discover which ballots are bogus? We're not just talking about counting here. We're talking about checking every absentee ballot against the requests....looking for duplicates and/or multiples....like thousands and thousands.
Sorry....it's an impossibility to determine.
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
“could have”
“Supposing this whole building should fall down on my head. You can suppose anything!” — Twelve Angry Men
That might be enough in WI, but if I’m reading the “PA recount will be a nightmare scenario for Jill Stein” article correctly, I think she’ll need more than “could have” for a judge in PA.
29 posted on
11/27/2016 3:53:30 PM PST by
jiggyboy
(Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Forgive me, but didn’t her people admit to not really having any evidence to start with at the beginning of all of this?
30 posted on
11/27/2016 3:53:44 PM PST by
OttawaFreeper
("If I had to go to war again, I'd bring lacrosse players" Conn Smythe)
To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Can you even begin to imagine how (rightfully so) the media would dismiss this nutty, insane-sounding crap about “foreign hackers” if it was Gary Johnson doing this after a Hillary Clinton win?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson