Whether you agree with Jill Steins politics or not, her recount action is good

[Equinox Moon]

It will clear up the speculations regarding tomfoolery. We won't go through years of wondering.

Thank you Jill & Rocque De La Fuente for filing for WI recount. Hopefully, you will file for MI and PA as well.

[EricMaundry]

1. Agreed

[still_one]

2. It is her right as a candidate to request a recount, and obtain the funds for the recount through

donations.

I honestly don't understand why this would even be an issue.

Some speculate on ulterior motives, but no one is forced to donate, and the donations are being used to fund the recount

What is the problem? It is someone's choice

[Equinox Moon]

4. Indeed.

Plus, it will benefit the nation.

[still_one]

5. Yes it will

[4139]

6. Ulterior motive? Build her brand and that of the Green Party...

She is now the hero of tens of millions!
Jill and the Green Party are the giant winners.... and it was FREE!

[Equinox Moon]

10. Does it upset you that American's will learn of the Green Party?

[Nay]

18. She's already uncovered election fraud, so in my mind she is already a

hero. It's more than the Democrats have done over the past 20 years to stop election fraud by the Republicans.

[4139]

22. I hadn't heard about that. Do you have a link?

[Nay]

23. It's in a few of today's other posts on the subject. Several hundred to a

thousand votes were found to be incorrect in Wisconsin. All incorrect votes were for Trump. In one county, more votes were tallied than there were of registered voters in the county and those 500 votes were taken from Trump. No one has been accused of anything yet, but it's definitely fraud of some kind.

[LisaL]

31. What did that have to do with Stein?

Who said anything about her uncovering anything?

[still_one]

19. I don't care, and I am NOT a third party fan either.

[Chemisse]

26. Who cares?

We get a recount. It will satisfy that gnawing worry that the vote was altered in key states.

And the fact that is was initiated by a third party, rather than Clinton, is to our benefit, as the request will seem less partisan.

[exboyfil]

29. Also a jobs program

Temporary mind you, but something extra in the paycheck for those doing the recount this Holiday season.

[spanone]

8. it's part of our democratic process. it is good for democracy to challenge.

[Hoyt]

3. Folks will just move to next excuse or conspiracy theory in the likely event it doesn't pan out.

And we will go from Clinton actually won to trashing her.

Time to move on.

Would definitely like to eat crow.

[kentuck]

7. Behind the scenes...

I think Hillary is encouraging and supporting her efforts?

Why wouldn't she do it on her own??

Is Donald Trump the type of guy that would say, "No, I cannot completely, take off the table, the possibility that Hillary may need to be investigated further?"?

Donald has connections. Ask Rudy?

[Chemisse]

27. I think if Hillary was the one requesting the recount,

it would splurt up all the venom that many people feel toward her, and make it a partisan tug of war.

This way, she continues to look like the gracious loser who would be pleasantly surprised if the election was suddenly handed to her via recount.

[True_Blue]

41. Yes it's better Jill Stein initiated the recount

Jill was not a big fan of Hillary, so by her requesting a recount rather than Hillary, it gives the issue much more legitimacy. If Hillary had questioned the results right away, they just would have accused her of being a sore loser.

[yallerdawg]

9. If you feed the speculation...

you don't make it go away.

Did you notice how many popular candidates this cycle told us our elections are rigged?

De-legitimizing government is a political means to an end.

Democrats are the target.

[oberliner]

11. No it's not

It's a scam to raise money for the Green Party which will be used against Democrats in the future.

Jill Stein has spent the last year and a half trashing Hillary Clinton and working aggressively to do everything possible to prevent her from becoming president.

[spooky3]

17. The person who requests the recount must pay

the fees. And she's already hired lawyers. Unless you believe she's Trumpian in being a deadbeat AND willing to have the entire US population shown that she is, she's not going to refuse to pay. Only Trump can get away with that--IOKIYAR.

[oberliner]

36. Understood

I think she will pay those fees. I just think she will raise more money than is needed for the recount and that the additional money raised will go to the Green Party itself.

[Stryst]

20. From the FEC website

What restrictions apply to funds raised for a recount?

In Advisory Opinion 2006-24, the Commission concluded that funds raised by party committees and federal candidates/officeholders for recount expenses are subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the federal campaign finance law, but are not contributions or expenditures. Committees must disclose funds received for a recount as "Other Receipts" and funds spent as "Other Disbursements."

So, you're wrong.

You've been making this claim all over DU all morning, and it's just not true. I literally typed the search request one handed while opening my first soda of the day. The fact that you don't seem to be able to do any research before you make claims is not a good look my friend.

[oberliner]

37. Did you read the rest of that document?

I would encourage you to do so.

Here's a link:

http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/2006-24.pdf

Here is the relevant passage:

Question 4: May a Federal candidate or the State Party retain excess funds in
the recount funds for future elections, or must the funds be disposed of in some manner?

You inquire very broadly as to all possible uses of leftover recount funds
including, but not limited to, whether such funds must be disposed of or whether they
may be kept in a separate account for future elections of the same candidate or be
transferred to other political committees. The Commission concludes that this question is
speculative, and a definitive answer depends upon various contingencies that may or may
not occur. This question is, therefore, hypothetical.

Commission regulations explain
that requests posing a hypothetical situation, presenting a general question of
interpretation, or regarding the activities of third parties, do not qualify as advisory
opinion requests. 11 CFR 112.1(b). On this basis, the Commission expresses no opinion
regarding this question. If a Federal candidate or State Party in fact has excess funds in a
recount fund after the election, the candidate or party may wish to resubmit this question
for Commission consideration with specific proposed plans for the excess funds.

[onecent]

12. Why doesn't half of American and the democratic party

get on the ball.....TRUMP IS A MONEY GRUBBING MASTERMIND...
LET'S STOP HIM..NOW

[Equinox Moon]

13. Let's not witness dumpman become a trillionaire by selling America

[DFW]

14. I don't, and it is. n/t

[pnwmom]

15. It might not clear anything up. It might give us false reassurance

because counting the paper ballots won't tell us anything about cities that use only paperless machines.

And the MIT computer scientist who's been speaking out about this says the electronic machines can be hacked with pre-inserted software without leaving a trace. (It can be set to self-destruct after the election.)

[spooky3]

16. Agree. I don't care about her motives. The actions

are necessary. I wanted the Dems to fight harder in prior elections, but if they feel they couldn't do it now, I'm glad someone did.

[SidDithers]

21. I wish she were as concerned about votes for Donald Trump...

before the election, as she seems to be after.

Sid

[ananda]

24. Absolutely!

The election process in too many states is now
completely corrupt.

[hamsterjill]

25. I agree.

What American citizen could possibly object to full transparency?

Seriously.

[bigmonkey]

28. Mysterious, isn't it?

Assuming that some of the people who are against the recounts are acting in good faith, I still find it hard to wrap my head around their opposition. The fact that the election systems are even _hackable_ is completely unacceptable, yet, somehow, "moving on" is more important. Making headway against disaster is portrayed as a waste of time.

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

34. I don't get it either. Is it because Obama is against it?

https://politicalwire.com/2016/11/25/obama-pushed-clinton-concede/

[TheFrenchRazor]

49. yes, and unfortunately, we've been here and done this before, and will probably do it again. nt

[oberliner]

39. Would you donate to a Republican under similar circumstances?

There were claims about voting irregularities made by the Republicans in 2012.

[TheFrenchRazor]

50. no, but i ABSOLUTELY would not oppose them. nt

[smirkymonkey]

30. K&R

[nini]

32. Quite frankly.. I don't even trust a recount

.

[Calista241]

33. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the turnaround here in the last few weeks

3 weeks ago, anyone who questioned the government's ability to put on legit election was laughed out of here, their posts hidden, and some even banned.

Now it's exactly the opposite. The Repubs managed to steal an election in Wisconsin, and this under the nose of a Democratic Secretary of State. They also managed to do the same in Pennsylvania, which has both a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Secretary of State.

The Repubs or even the Russians would have had to have a huge operation, in hundreds of counties, at the same time. And nobody talked, nobody told a friend, nobody sold their story to make a buck, they just disappeared into the wilderness with nobody the wiser.

And all they're doing is recounting the votes. If there was the type of hacking / manipulation going on that many here suspect, that will not be uncovered by a simple recount.

We should be focusing our money and efforts on the Senate race is Louisiana. We should be working on how we oppose Trump. We should be working to win back the trust and confidence of the voters who just abandon our party on the flimsiest of promises to bring jobs back. We should be deciding how we're going to kick their asses in 2018 and 2020.

But no, we've got thousands of people, and millions of dollars recounting vote totals we've already lost. In other threads, we've got people insulting voters, labeling them racist. We're going to need these people in 2018 and 2020. We cannot win the Presidency or pass our agenda by just winning California, New York, Illinois and a couple other states.

[bigmonkey]

35. I disagree with your disdain.

1) The nature of electronic election fraud is such that a huge conspiracy is not essential. Viruses, like hacks, are not introduced on computer systems by huge teams working clandestinely.

2) If it were the case that recounting is pointless, because the hacking did occur (which you previously doubted), then, by simple extension, voting is pointless, because it can be hacked. How, then, can a focus on winning races solve a problem that prevents the races from being won?

[TheFrenchRazor]

46. nothing to see here folks, move along... nt

[TheFrenchRazor]

47. I NEVER gave a vote of confidence to hackable machines. many here were very foolish indeed. nt

[tandem5]

38. Blackbox voting with proprietary code is opaque.

So recount away (especially in PA) it will truly never clear things up.

[bigmonkey]

40. It is, but simply saying that is mere feckless cynicism.

Bringing more eyes to the problem, raising awareness, incrementally improving it, these are the alternatives to a world where simply saying the truth would fix the problem.

The voting system should be transparent and auditable, and randomly, routinely audited.

[tandem5]

42. The OP used the phrase "clear up the speculations."

When the recount concludes and the results are modified slightly due only to the discovery of some "minor clerical errors" those that wanted only to be comforted will be and in two years we will begin again. I trust in God, but we aren't rowing hard enough to avoid the rocks so I'm simply reminded all those on board of impending pain and death. Maybe they'll row a little harder.

[bigmonkey]

48. Perhaps you propose the same public service in two years?

Meanwhile emphasizing that progress seems impossible? To spur folks to new heights of activism?

[tandem5]

51. I guess. If you need any additional feckless comments just let me know.

[bigmonkey]

52. Cynicism without action promotes the status quo.

In my opinion.

[tandem5]

53. I think you're arguing with somebody else.

[TheFrenchRazor]

45. correct; we need all paper ballots, all hand-counted. it was done for centuries before computers. nt

[Adrahil]

43. It would have been better...

.. if she had rallied her supporters behind Clinton. She is a vain, ridiculous woman. Trying to close the barn door after the horse is out doesn't get her any points with me.

[TheFrenchRazor]

44. absolutely, but we need all paper ballots, all hand-counted. nt

[DonCoquixote]

54. agreed

if this starts the fire, excellent