Jill Stein Pushes for Recounts in Wisconsin, PA and Michigan

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,800
now, while I've not seen those particular maps before, I was aware of the urban/rural breakdown of Rep/Dem support.
nothing unique about that at all.
I've seen similar maps for England.

as the Yanks say - guns don't kill people.
it's people that kill people.

now, I say -
the mountains, the lakes the prairies, the forests of the USA don't vote.
it's the people who vote.

I agree with you when you say -

" What may be important to the people living in the metropolitan coastal areas might not be important to those living outside of them"

I imagine that you might agree with me when I say -

What may be important to the people living in the affluent leafy suburbs of Dublin might not be important to those living outside of them !

however, I wouldn't be proposing a US Style Electoral College System here, anytime soon.

& one could also say -

What may be important to the rich neighbours of Trump Towers might not be important to those living in impoverished districts of Harlem, only a few miles away.

& sadly - I don't think that the EC System does much for them though.

I think that was your 4th attempt, & sorry you failed yet again to answer the simple question -

how did the Electoral College System "protect State rights" in the recent Presidential Election ?

well - i'll answer it for you -
it's very simple IMO.

the EC System didn't protect anything.
it did however ensure that the candidate who lost the popular vote by close to three million votes, succeeded in being elected President of the USA.
The revelations just mentioned in several media outlets including Fox just now that over 200 precincts in Detroit had more votes than voters underlines how questionable HRCs popular vote is. JFKs win in 1960 was clearly caused by voter fraud in Texas and especially Chicago. Theres a tradition of this in the Democratic party especially along the Mexican border.
 


D

Deleted member 48908

It's a Union of States. It is the states that give power to the Executive and to the President.
Head.
Brick wall.
Continue banging.

They are ever seeing, but not perceiving, and ever hearing but not understanding......
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,378
Head.
Brick wall.
Continue banging.

They are ever seeing, but not perceiving, and ever hearing but not understanding......
I know you get this but it's worth reiterating....


It's the United States of America and the name has more than symbolism. It's not the People's Republic of America or the Democratic Peoples Republic of America.

The President derives his or her power from the states, not the other way around. There are 50 states and they all have a voice, not an equal voice but a weighted voice. All the states have a say in who gets to be President of the Union.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

I know you get this but it's worth reiterating....


It's the United States of America and the name has more than symbolism. It's not the People's Republic of America or the Democratic Peoples Republic of America.

The President derives his or her power from the states, not the other way around. There are 50 states and they all have a voice, not an equal voice but a weighted voice. All the states have a say in who gets to be President of the Union.
But not the mountains, the lakes or the prairies, though...right? ;)
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
12,843
Despite your verbose and pedantic, if eloquent, pursuit of an answer, you have failed to read it. Perhaps a graphical representation of how the Electoral College system protected State rights will help.

Here, in the first image, we can see the geographical breakdown of areas and States where the majority of people voted to elect Mrs. Clinton:



In this second image, we can see the geographical breakdown of areas and States where the majority of people voted to elect Mr. Trump:



The images clearly and definitively show at the EC has protected the rights of the States to elect the president they wanted to represent them. What may be important to the people living in the metropolitan coastal areas might not be important to those living outside of them. Policies and regulations that work for California or New York may be counterproductive for Michigan or Texas or Florida.
When it comes to electing Presidents, I'd be more in favour of brain mass than land mass
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,751
Done and dusted now, conspiracy theorists will have to return to area 51
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
12,843
The revelations just mentioned in several media outlets including Fox just now that over 200 precincts in Detroit had more votes than voters underlines how questionable HRCs popular vote is. JFKs win in 1960 was clearly caused by voter fraud in Texas and especially Chicago. Theres a tradition of this in the Democratic party especially along the Mexican border.
If there was voter fraud in precincts in Detroit, it must be identified and acted on.
For an issue that you guys claim is irrelevant, Clinton's big win in the popular vote sure seems to grate.

btw
The idea that voter fraud "clearly caused JFK's 1960 win" has long been debunked as an historical myth.
If any fraud took place in Cook County, it was proven not to be near decisive enough to overturn the result (you do realise there was a recount?).
There is zero evidence (unless you count GOP hysteria) of voter fraud having stolen Texas.
It's of course ironic that the paragon of virtue you falsely claim was denied the Presidency by voter fraud, was subsequently proven to be an election rigger.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,031
When it comes to electing Presidents, I'd be more in favour of brain mass than land mass
Im sure you would, then just let in 20 or 30 million hispanics and the democrats can sit in permanent power. anyway #calexit :D
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,800
Last edited:
Last edited:
If there was voter fraud in precincts in Detroit, it must be identified and acted on.
For an issue that you guys claim is irrelevant, Clinton's big win in the popular vote sure seems to grate.

btw
The idea that voter fraud "clearly caused JFK's 1960 win" has long been debunked as an historical myth.
If any fraud took place in Cook County, it was proven not to be near decisive enough to overturn the result (you do realise there was a recount?).
There is zero evidence (unless you count GOP hysteria) of voter fraud having stolen Texas.
It's of course ironic that the paragon of virtue you falsely claim was denied the Presidency by voter fraud, was subsequently proven to be an election rigger.
In Illinois in 1960 the Dems certified the results quickly to stop a recount. Studies have shown many cases of results exceeding the electorate of counties in places JFK won. The results in Chicago were held back by Mayor Daley until the following day, which adds to suspicions.

Wikipedia said:
Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[43] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million,[49] although Cook County also includes many suburbs outside of Chicago's borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and "claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy."[43]

In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a narrow 51 to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.[43] Some Republicans argued that Johnson's formidable political machine had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory. Kennedy's defenders, such as his speechwriter and special assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy's margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor. Russell D. Renka, a former political science professor at Southeastern Missouri State University,[50] acknowledged that it was more than likely that Johnson's political machine in the state's lower Rio Grande Valley counties, including the notorious Duval County, could have "managed to produce a significant number of forged votes" for Kennedy.[51] However, Renka also acknowledged that Kennedy's margin in the state's initial tally "made it far too difficult to prove that voter fraud had determined who won Texas" and that "any recount would also have been hard to conduct."[51]

Cases of voter fraud were discovered in Texas. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.[42] In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received 187 votes to Nixon's 24, though there were only a total of 86 registered voters in the precinct.[42] When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already "certified" Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.[42]

In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon's case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley's recommendation), threw out a federal lawsuit "filed to contend" the voting totals,[42] the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[52] More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.[43]

However, a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, which did not result in convictions.[42] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[42] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he "found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house."[42] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois, but said that the totals "did not match the Chicago fraud he found."[42] After Mazo had published four parts of an intended 12-part voter fraud series documenting his findings which was re-published nationally, he said, "Nixon requested his publisher stop the rest of the series so as to prevent a constitutional crisis."[42] Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune (which routinely endorsed GOP presidential candidates, including Nixon in 1960, 1968 and 1972) wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."[42] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote.
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
12,843
Last edited:
Last edited:
In Illinois in 1960 the Dems certified the results quickly to stop a recount. Studies have shown many cases of results exceeding the electorate of counties in places JFK won. The results in Chicago were held back by Mayor Daly until the following day, which adds to suspicions.
Hilarious
In one post you state voter fraud "clearly caused" JFK's 1960 win and now say Mayor Daley's (for such an election boffin, surprised you cannot spell his name) actions merely fuelled "suspicions".

You do realise the "Mazo" quoted above as some sort of independent arbitrator is in fact Earl Mazo, who was one of Nixon's closest friends and subsequent biographer.

The 1960 election was no more stolen than the current one, get over it.
 

Ramon Mercadar

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
15,002
Putin: Questions for Jill Stein and the Green Party Leadership

Jill Stein, Putin and the Green Party's Internal Life.

by Sean O'Torain.

Fellow members of the Green Party. I would like to raise some questions for the Green Party leaderhip and also make a few comments. I am speaking here with restraint in the hope that we can elicit a response from the leadership of our Party and have a reasonable discussion.

My main questions are these.

What was Jill Stein doing at a dinner in Russia sitting at the same table with Putin and Trump's now disgraced ex National Security Advisor Flynn?

After the collapse of Stalinism a brutal Russian capitalist class rose out of the ruins and took over. Putin represents this class. He represents this brutal Russian imperialism which represses its own working class and opposition and invades other countries. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the fossil fuel industry. He bases himself on nationalist propaganda and on the support of the extreme reactionary anti women Russian Orthodox Church. This is who Jill Stein was meeting with!! There was no way that Jill Stein did anything but harm to the environmental movement, to the women's movement and to working people in Russia and internationally by meeting with Putin. I hope Jill Stein and the Green Party leadership explain what they think they were doing. One thing they have done is make it much more difficult to defend and build the Green Party here in the US. Along with everything else we now have to defend Jill Stein sitting down with Putin. If the Green Party leadership were wanting to damage the Party's growth it could not do so much more effectively. If the Green party does begin to grow significantly think how many times this photo with Jill Stein sitting with Putin and Flynn will be dragged out by its enemies.

Now to another question. I want to know who took this decision that Jill Stein would visit and have dinner with Putin and Flynn? At what meeting was this important decision taken? What body of the party decided this? I know I never heard of any such meeting which discussed this. I know that I never heard any discussion about this issue, that is would it be a good idea for Jill Stein to meet Putin or not? I look forward to an answer on this. The Party leadership has a duty to tell the Party membership what body took this decision, where and when it met, who was invited to attend, who was not invited to attend, and who spoke. I never got any invitation to such a meeting and I know of nobody else who got an invitation. If the Party leadership does not provide this information it will prove that it is acting in an undemocratic way. ...

https://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.ie/2017/02/putin-questions-for-jill-stein-and_28.html?spref=tw
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom