By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
irstupid on 13 December 2016
Edit Thread
mutantsushi said:

I don't get the opposition to recounts here, or anywhere.
Reasonable that a certain thresh-hold or judicial standard applies for them to be publicly funded.
But if somebody wants to fund it on their own to get more clarity on results, what is problem?
Why should results of election be kept "secret" from more close perusal?
Keeping the bar for recount low means it will be harder to deny it in truly dubious contentious cases.

You think it's a waste of money? Fine, people waste money on all sorts of things.
Some guy caught embezzling millions from his job spent a million or so on some MMORPG.
People spend money on diamond crusted iPhone. People spend money on whatever.
How is this worse than that if people want to spend money on most accurate vote count?

1. Waste of money (It's not all her money. Taxpayers are also being forced to fund so much of it)

2. It has been proven many times that beyond a threshold amount of some % a recount is meaningless. I think only one of the states fit that %, and all three needed to flip for Hillary to win.

3. Why were only those 3 chosen. Why not the 3 closests states. Why only the 3 close Trump wins?

4. Hipocracy. Trump was ridiculed when he even teased before the election that he might not accept the results and the media and every politician alive ripped him a new one. Then post election results, you have everyone wanting to check the ressults and recount, lose the electorate college, russian hack, ect, you name it. 

5. Jill Stein. YOu have a person who got what at best 1% of the vote in those states asking for a recount?