Ten oz

Jill Stein filed where she did on the recommendation of a group of computer analysts. They (the analysts) feel the there ar discrepancies between exit polling and the result and that the specific machines are susceptible to hacking and or error. They might be wrong. Their suspicion may be unfounded. All the same, that is why Stein filed where she did. If fraud is found I assume many other states will be recounted. You seem to be implying that a recount is a slippery slope.That allowing a recount in this case will create a precendence for more recounts in the future. Assuming campaigns pay for the recounts and the results of the recounts are accurate I don't see the problem with recounts. More dangerous in my opinion is the fact that we just had foriegn cyber attacks against a candidate during an election and partisan investigations. That precedent is far more alarming. The thought that moving forward all important election may see cyber attacks and Congress ordering probes and investigation to taint the image of a candidate and generate suspicion is anti democratic in my opinion. Far worse than a candidate raising money and paying for votes to be recounted for accuracy.

The murder rate in Chicago fell every year for decades along with the rest of the country until a couple years ago when it dramatically started back up. This year specifically has been terrible. There is a very serious problem in Chicago currently. However it is worth pointing out that the murder and violence numbers in Chicago today is still lower than it was in the 80's and 90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago Unfortunately there will always be crime. There will always be cities with more crime than others. Even as crime falls nationally there will always be a city doing worse than other cities. Everyone in this thread agress that murder, rape, assualt, theft, and a long list of other crimes at terrible. Same goes for education, poverty, employment, healthcare,and etc. We all wish the best. Chicago's struggles doesn't mean that the situation isn't better today. Chicago's problems don't justify your remarks about the way you personally feel as a white male. You do not live in Chicago, to my knowledge you do not own a business in Chicago, what is happening in Chicago has no impact on your life.

I think this is relevant to the conversation. The preception that whites are under threat or more rural areas are under threat is often expressed as a criminal justice issue. Trump campaigned on "law and order" and posters in this thread are complaining about drug dealers and gang bangers to justify their political positions. So lets be clear, crime in the United States is low as it has been in all our adult lifetimes. Crime in the United Stares is falling and has been falling for decades.

It is unknown what Trump will or will not do. Nothing he says can be taken at face value. He claims to be against TPP but we don't really know until it happens what will happen. Trump may leave the ACA untouched, no ones really knows. The two initial things I am looking at economically are interest rates and energy. Rates will be going up which probably will have a negative impact on new home buyer. However anything is possible with Trump so deregulation in banking could allow mortgage companies to create clever and risky ways to get people signed up and create another housing market crisis. I am looking at energy because Trump and most Republican's in general have a yesterday is tomorrow mindset towards it. They see oil and coal as the truth the way and the life. However the oil market is already flooded with product and wind/solar has actually increase at levels in recent years that we simple aren't hurting for more energy. Exporting coal is what I assume the (GOP) have in mind. Long term things are Social Security and Medicare. It is no secret that the GOP has wanted to reform and at least partiially privatize both. It isn't something I think they do day one because of how unpopular it would be. However I suspect we will see a plan rolled out eventually. Looking through my "crystal ball" partially privatizing Social Security and allowing some portion of it put into the market (as Bush proposed) would send markets soaring but also create nurmerous bubbles that in time would lead to a collaspe which would cost millions their Social Security and lead to some form of gov't bailout andlength economic recession/depression. Thing is we just don't have a clue. Bush coasted along pushing tax cuts and not much else until 9/11 and then we ended up with 2 wars, new gov't departments, a militarization of our law enforcment agencies, an airline bail out, and etc. Every president faces un unaccpted events. Reagan had Beriut, Bush 41 the invasion of Kuwait, Clinton the USS Cole Bombing, Bush 9/11, and Obama Benghazi. It is unclear how Trump will manage basic policy. I don't think anyone has any idea how Trump will respond to emergent situations. The what ifs are endless: what if North Korea attacks/threatens South Korea or Japan, China takes control of Taiwan, Iran attacks Israel, Russia pushes into the rest of Ukraine, ISIS moves into Turkey, Mexico won't pay for the wall (hahaha), or etc. Nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. We don't know what Trump will do with regards to TPP or NAFTA. No one knows. I honest don't think Trump knows at the moment.

The "founders" spoke on very few things in a single vioce. Everyone who claims the founders wanted, expected, thought, believed, or etc are generalizing to an almost dishonest extend. The founders (39 men who signed the Constitution) disagreed on many things. The 12th Amendment which you are discussing wasn't even part of the Consititution when "the founders" initially signed it. The 12th admendment was approved by Congress (House voted 83-42 and Senate 22-10). The 12th Admendment came about because of issues in 1796 and 1800 where the President and Vice Presidents were spilt and created conflicts within the adminstration do to partisanship. A split between the pooular vote and the electoral college to specifically protect rural peoples was not the explicit purpose as you are stating. We are talking about a time in history when women couldn't vote and blacks were 3/5th a person. You cannot linerearly apply purpose to "the founders" from a 2016 perspective. http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/12th-amendment

The inconsistancy of conservative is sad. Clinton has 2 million more votes but conservatives say "so what" and "there the wrong votes" and point to the law and demand we all just shut up. Now that Jill Stein is using the law to request a recount many conservatives are arguing that unless Clinton herself calls for a recount no recount should happen. Of course that isn't what the laws says. In MI the recount should be automatic because the vote was so close. In WI Stein as a candidate has the legal right to request a recount, and in PA Stein need to take individual counties to court and the court must request the recount. If we must follow the law and accept the ellectoral college than we must also follow the law and accept recounts.

The Milgram's Experiment of Obidence touched on this some. All if took to get average everday people to participate in torture was lab coats and the general impression that those instructing them were professionals/authorities on the matter. While it is showing up in social media today I think it has mostly always been the case. A large percentage of people simply feel (prospect the actions of others and copy) their way through life. The Asch Comformity experiments showed that the marjority of people, to various extents, knowing answered questions incorrect simply to conform with those around them. Milgram's Experiment - https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm Asch Comfority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments those who know to speak up must.I think what happens too often is that people feel it is more important to be polite than stand for or against things. A large percentage of people know climate change is real, know there is institutional racism in our criiminal justice system, know religion doesn't belong in biology class, and etc but don't want to fight. They (we) are willing to accept that our system calls for compromise so we must sit back and allow for others to speak. Meanwhile those who lie and abuse societies politeness do so enormous amount of energy because they understand they can influence the bar for compromise. Apathetic people who believe in evolution but are uncomfortable offending religious people, know climate change is happening but accept coal miners jobs are just as important, know that the claimed "freest" nation in the world shouldn't imprison record amounts of people but don't feel comfortable critcizing police or judges, and etc are all responsible. The majority of people all know and accept what they see being pushed the most strongly. People need to speak up for the truth even when socially inconvenient or else they are being complicit to the spread of misinformation.

Why you ask: 1 - people believe a recount may change the result 2 - people believe there was so illegal business at play 3 - Cliunton has a multi million vote lead and it shows due diligence out of respect for the majority of voters who did not vote for the candidate who has been declared the winner. It won't satisfy every protester but will satisfy many of them and many of those who empathize with them. I know for myself, my wife, and many I know it would provide closure. I would like to know for sure what the numbers are regardless of Trump winning. It he won by 20 thousand votes vs 21 thousands votes I would like to know for sure that I can trust that number to be correct. Whether you are the person making a payment or receiving payment shouldn't you count every cent? As for what happens if there are discrepancies I don't even know what to say. You seem to be implying that a recount could uncover wrong doing so we should avoid one. That makes no sense. A recount should verify the initial count. In a perfect world the recount should have the same result. If the result is different than we (the country) deserves to know why it is different.

The popullation of California is 12% of the country. That is a healthy slice of the pie. In calculating a popular vote I don't understand why it would ever be useful to ignore 12% of the vote in an attempt to prove or explain something. If we were remove TX, Clinton won the population vote by 3 milion. So what? Jill Stein has officially filed for recounts in WI,MI, and PA. Her reasons for doing so can be debated but I ask you, what does it hurt? There seems to be a notion implied by some in here that unless one can prove voter fraud or prove Trump didn't win no recount should happen. However that is what a recount should verify isn't it? Ideally there would be no evidence of fraud and the recount would match the initial count. That would (or should in my opinion) increase confidence in the system and fully legitimize Trump's win in the eyes of doubters. So what is the problem?

Who did CA ensure victory for? Reagan, Nixon, and Bush 41 like Clinton and Obama won their elections buy well over a hundred electoral votes. CA's 55 votes has not be the deciding factor in any election I am know of. It doesn't ensure voctory for either party and has voted red. I don't even understand you question about mail in voters and demographics. Hillary Clinton has over 64 million votes. CA only has 39 million people. More than people in california voted for Clinton. 60% of the Vote in CA has gone to Clinton. Why is that disqualifying, because you assume it is mostly minorities who voted for her? Donald Trump received at least 60% or more in : Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennesse, West VA, and Wyoming. Shall we disqualifying their vote too for being too uniform or does the demographics of those states count more in your opinion?

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 (in 1988) all won CA. Meanwhile in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012 Clinton & Obama won by so many Electoral votes they didn't even need CA's 55 to win. Saying CA "usually" turns the country blue in close elections requires some examples of what you are talking about. Recently as the 80's CA was a red state.

Everything you stated that Trump does and has done is just an assumption. You give him the benefit of the doubt. He won't show us his financials so you just assuming the best. You are assuming that what he does pay in taxes elsewhere is enough to still be a net value to society, you assume those he pays is far greater than those who he has stiffed, you assume that those who he has hired generate more good to society than the negative created amongst those he has defrauded. We don't really have any idea because he will not show the American people what is what with his business or personnal finances.

You do realize that Donald Trump has children with 3 different women don't you? Donald Trump has also lost fraud cases in court, failed to pay contractors for their work, and declared bankruptcy 6 times. Oh, and he has boasts about not paying taxes saying that it makes him smart. Is Donald Trump carrying his weight?

@Delta1212, WI is inside of a single percentage point with less that 30k votes separating them.

@tar, that is a lot of extrapolation. Asking for a recount in states that are extremely close does not mean I believe Russia hacked voting machines. No where in this thread or any other thread can't you find a post were I implied that. I have said Russia hacked Clinton's campaign but that is known to be true and not a fringe theory. As mail in ballots have continued to be counted the margins for Trump's victories in keys states has shrunk. It doesn't require belief in an eloborate plot to want a recount.

It is tough. No one like to be a sore loser. People are also nervous about embracing conspiracy theories for fear of seeming irrational. In my opinion recounts are in order. I have said as much since the election happened. It is worth doing to help create closure and ensure fairness. I never have understood the hesitation to perform recounts. It happens in both the general and mid-terms. There are close races and people end up debating whether recounts should happen, just perform the recount. What is the harm? In this case one candidate won 2 million more votes but still lost. It is an unprecedented situation. Just perform a recount. One shouldn't feel like they are part of the tin foil hat brigade for wanting recounts.

I don't know that I want the popular vote to decide things. I am still thinking about it. Cheaters cheat! Changing the rules merely changes the manner in which they cheat. We need more due diligence. Things like automatic recounts in states which are closer than 5% when the popular vote and EC is split, nationalized standard for absentee and early voting so there is continuity, maybe even allow a second national vote when the popular and EC splits specifically and only for voters who were already registered but didn't vote for whatever reason on election day, and etc. We currently have 50 states doing it 50 different ways. CO primarily has a mail system with over 20 days to vote while other states like PA doesn't have early voting at all. Bothsides complain about the system. Conservative claim illegal immigrants are able to vote and Liberal point out that many of the laws individuals states put in place supress turnout and tagetedly make it hard for specific groups to vote. With so many variances around the country it is very hard to not feel uncomfortable when someone like Trump (a provable liar) is able to win an election while receiving 2 million less votes.

In my opinion, if true and not merely captious, that no degree could exist which would change your point of view lacks reasoning.There is a degree at which I would change my point of view about anything and everything. If you do not allow for new information to update your prespective your are being unreasonable. Perhaps 2 million more popular votes isn't enough for you to consider revising how you feel but to say no number seems either dishonest or dangerous. Surely if Clinton won 120 million votes to Trumps 60 million votes yet lost the Electoral College you would reconsider? There is a point where the imbalance become too great for us to call our system democratic. "We must follow our Consitution" is an empty statement. The Constitution is different today than it was in 1787. It was designed in such a way as to allow change. Changes are the reason why more than only land owners are allowed to vote, a President can only serve two terms, we still don't have slaves, and etc. The total populatioon of the Country when the Constitution was signed was 3.9 million. The 2 million more votes Hillary Clinton received is a number larger than the total pool of eligible voters that existed when the Constitution was created.

When Tea Party protest rose up all over and conservatives were out protesting Obama I don't recall Liberals arguing that they shouldn't protest. Hundreds of thousands of consewrvatives marched on the National Mall for the 9/12 Taxpayer's march. I recall liberals arguing that they shouldn't hold racist signs with pictures of a monkey's body with the Presidents face on it and what not but no one argued that they had no right to be out there. There is no double standard here. Protest in itself is not disrespectful and Obama endured far greater than what we are currently seeing.

There is a degree at which you would feel differently. What if Clinton had 4 million more, 10 million more, 20 million more. At 2 million we are already in unprecedented terrority. No candidate for POTUS has every won 2 million more votes and lost. In 00' Al Gore won 500 thousand more votes. This (2 million) is 4 times greater. Would you accept another quadrupling to 8 million and still post "so what". And this issue isn't limited to the Executive Branch: "Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan D.C. publication, said House Democrats out-drew their Republican counterparts by more than 1 million votes--1.37 million votes to be precise, Cook’s House editor, David Wasserman. Between the two parties, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the vote while winning 46 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/26/lloyd-doggett/democrats-outpolled-republicans-who-landed-33-seat/ Republicans are also win more seats in the legislative branch without the popular vote. We (USA) push democracy all out the world and yet here in our own country we are allowing a single political ideology to consolidate power without majority support. There is a point when it must change. You don't believe now is that time. When would the time be? How many votes would it take to perk your interest?

Hillary Clinton currently has 1.7 million more votes than Trump and the number is still growing as states continue to finish counting all their mail in votes. Clinton is expected to finish with more than 2 million more votes than Trump. That is more votes than the entire population living in any of the following states: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virgina, and Wyoming.

@ Nec209, I don't fully agree. Obviously there is spite. I don't think that is the foundation though. I think it truly comes down to identity/race. Many conservatives feel that this country is or was founded to be a white Evangelical nation. They feel that it is their place (white Evangelical males) to run. Sort of the same way many men consider themselves the head of the household. Many men who believe it is their role to lead their households don't view it as sexist but merely a reality of life. Similarly conservative don't consider it racist to assume this is their (white Evangelical) country just a s a man considers the home he and his wife share to be his. The attitude is that Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, Hindus, Buudists, and etc are welcome to visit and hang out but at the end of the day the house belongs to Evangelical whites. For better our worse it is theirs to lead. Which is one of the reasons why they don't care who wins the popualr vote, polls, which voters are supressed, and etc. It doesn't matter because they're the "real Americans" and their thoughts, feelings, and etc carry more weight, period.

Right, why bother getting 90% of what you want when you can have ZERO.

Yes, and without popular support no less. Unless progressive are able to find the energy to stand against conservatives with the same single minded and united focus I don't see anything changing. The whole "Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line" played out this year as may progressives allowed themselve to accept that Hillary Clinton wasn't worth supporting.

This a typical conservative bait and switch. When Bush was President and we were debating Iraq many conservative pundits made a point to argue that it was unpatriotic to criticize Bush after 9/11, or to criticize a war time President, and etc. Ironically Trump himself spent years running away trying to deligitimize Obama by claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Why that is acceptable yet Pence hearing it from a crowd while out in public is absurd.