Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cog wrote:You know as well as I do the monarchy stays out of politics for the most part. And have no real power. Can your judiciary declare an act of Parliament unconstitutional and therefore invalid? Don't see how since you don't have a constitution.

Yes. Nobody is above the law. Despite claims to the contrary we do have a Constitution, it's just not a single document and it is up to the Judiciary to determine what is/is not constitutional. Only Parliament (not the Government) can change the Constitution though Acts of Parliament.

The only real power the monarch has left is to dissolve Parliament, this is in practise more theatre than anything else. The Queen would not move to dissolve Parliament without the Government asking her to.

Its Hilarious to see the Ds who ranted and raved that Trump's pre-election concerns about the election being rigged were crazy and totally beyond the pale now making crazy claims themselves that the election was rigged.

The fact that different counties with different voting machines voted in different percentages for Trump and Hillary isn't surprising.

In fact we would expect different counties to vote in different percentages. They are different places with different populations.

I wish the Ds would give up on their crazy claims that the election was rigged and come back to reality rather then finding solace for their electoral loss in nutty conspiracy theories.

Cheers!


President-in-exile Hillary and her followers believe the election was rigged and Hillary is really the president!

Perhaps it was harder for Hillary to hack the electronic voting machines than the paper ballots. Its not like the Democrats are very intelligent when it comes to computer security and servers.

The election probably wasn't hacked. But Clinton should request recounts just in case.
http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

Hacked or Not, Audit This Election (And All Future Ones)
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/hacked-not-audit-election-rest/

Hillary Clinton surpasses 2M popular vote lead amid calls for recount
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/11/23/Hillary-Clinton-surpasses-2M-popular-vote-lead-amid-calls-for-recount/4661479916244/

As things stand, Hillary's going down in history for having the hugest popular vote lead yet still losing the electoral college (since 1877, anyway).

I heard a report on CNN where the panelist was saying according to her sources close to the campaign, Hillary Clinton will be making a final decision over the weekend about whether to request a recount.

Sixstrings wrote: Hillary Clinton will be making a final decision over the weekend about whether to request a recount.

Hanging chads here we come.


Cheers!

Okay, I'll do the obligatory hanging chads jokes..




BUT seriously..

I do wonder if maybe Russia hacked this thing. Because think about it.. there were all those articles (about the FBI) saying that Russia *hacked voter databases with names, voter registrations*.

And then recently I read an article that theorized that Russian intel could have slipped an algorithm into the electronic voting machines, *casting votes for the names they previously hacked*. So, like placing votes in there for Trump, from people that didn't actually vote.

So now.. we hear all this talk about how electronic voting machines seem to have been a lot more pro Trump, versus paper ballots.

I'm not saying it's likely, but if government just wanted to do the right thing and also protect future elections, then really the WHOLE Russia thing and all the hacking should be looked into, and impound some of the voting machines and really look at them and make sure no software was slipped in, and no tampering.

Would that be unreasonable to do?

PLANT, even Jill Stein just announced SHE wants a recount:

Alexandra Jaffe ✔ @ajjaffe
It's official: Jill Stein announces plans to file for a recount in PA, MI & WI. From her release:

I assume you support Jill Stein's call for a recount?

Actually I don't support a recount. Whats the point?---its completely impossible to recount votes cast on an electronic voting machine

The Ds insisted the nation had to "upgrade" voting machines after Al Gore lost in 2000. The result was federal money to buy electronic voting machines. BUT You can't recount the vote on electronic voting machines. There is no paper record to recount and no data on what any individual did. Whatever the machine says the final result is---thats the only record available of the vote so a recount changes nothing.

Its one of the reasons I like our classic old-style paper ballot and voter ID system here in Alaska. You have to show your ID when you vote so we've got a good check on who voted and because we still use paper ballots its possible to go back and recount the actual ballots that were cast.

Cheers!

Chew on this Six$-tard, you racist dipshit.

Some news about Jill Stein and the Green Party's recount effort:

Jill Stein's Election Recount Campaign Raises More Than $3 Million

Stein referred to the reliability of the election results in a statement Wednesday, in which she said “These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust.”
http://fortune.com/2016/11/24/jill-stein-election-recount-campaign/

CNN interview with Stein:

https://youtu.be/JNRDdzkK9NA

Jill Stein launches vote recount bid in key US states

The leader of the Green Party in the US is asking the state of Wisconsin to verify its vote tallies.

Jill Stein launched an online crowdfunding page to raise the $2.5m needed to request a recount.
https://youtu.be/SZxH1n6BZ4o

Green Party's Jill Stein Raises Millions for Election Recount

However, she quickly raised the sum being sought by another $2 million. "Raising money to pay for the first round so quickly is a miraculous feat and a tribute to the power of grassroots organizing," a message on her website read.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/green-partys-jill-stein-raises-millions-election-recount-n687801

Jill Stein met her $2.5 million vote recount fundraising goal overnight
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/jill-stein-vote-recount-funds-pa-mi-wi/

Michigan electoral votes have been awarded to Trump. For a recount effort to be successful, Hillary would have to win PA, WI, and MI in a recount. One thing you can count on if this recount effort goes forward, is there will be legions of Republican lawyers up in the process. I do not think the cities of Detroit and Philadelphia really want anyone examining the Democrat voter rolls too closely.

Jill Stein's recount fundraising is up to $5.1 million in just two days. And she's filed all the paperwork and Wisconsin will do the recount:

Election Recount to Begin in Wisconsin Following Green Party Petition, Officials Say

Wisconsin Elections @WI_Elections
The Commission has received the Stein and Del La Fuente recount petitions. Details and news release posted soon at http://elections.wi.gov.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/jill-stein-submits-presidential-recount-petition-wisconsin-n688316

Wisconsin Green Party press conference:

https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlbo

A top green party official went over charts and graphs, he said for the exit polls to be wrong as much as they were, that's only a 1 in 850 statistical chance:

https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlbo?t=671

Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.

People giving my Green Party money for a recount are are wasting their money.

There isn't much of a chance that Jill Stein is going to win the vote in Wisconsin.

Cheers!

Follow the money on this fiasco.

I think the argument would be made in a lower court which would then be appealed to the SCOTUS.
Scalia was the most "friendly" to the right, without hims perhaps it would not split?
If it did split, whatever ruling the lower court made would stand I'm pretty sure

It would only go the the House in the case of neither party receiving the required 270.
I don't know if that is possible here, could be, I just don't know.

I'm no lawyer tho, YMMV.

Michigan, by its own rules, does an internal recount of all the votes. That is why they only released the official results 3 days ago. Now, if 10,000 votes are found in the back seat of a Democrat election judge's car, we have moved into an interesting time. Good luck with what happens.

Sixstrings wrote:Wisconsin Green Party press conference:

https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlbo

A top green party official went over charts and graphs, he said for the exit polls to be wrong as much as they were, that's only a 1 in 850 statistical chance:

https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlbo?t=671

Gee. 27 minutes of Youtube drivel from the party launching the suit. No cited papers or data showing how the "850 to 1" statistical chance was arrived at. At least he does admit there is no smoking gun.

I scanned through the video (I wasn't going to listen to 27+ minutes of that nonsense), and I saw a couple/few graphs where they don't like the fact that the exit polls don't match the vote percentage. Aside from yapping and arm waving, that appears to be the entirely of their "case" to investigate.

As if we hadn't just shown a clear example of the vagaries of polling...

Funny how the numbers game is played completely differently in a different context. After HRC's cattle futures-gate episode, credible statistical estimates of her being able to repeat her results honestly were over a TRILLION TO ONE.

And yet did anything come of that?

Crickets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy

Likelihood of results[edit]
Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Clinton's successful results. Clinton made her money by betting on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.[12] The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Her activities involved exposure to losses that potentially could have been greater than her family's net worth if the market had turned sharply against her.[13] The former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team expressed skepticism that a novice trader could make such a return.[14] One analysis performed by Auburn University and published in the Journal of Economics and Finance claimed to find that the odds of a return that large during the period in question were about one in 31 trillion.[15][16][17]
Likelihood of results[edit]

But of course, since she wasn't ever required to put up adequate margin to trade in the size she did, her family never actually TOOK that risk. Funny how the poor people she pretends to represent never get such chances (illegally) thrown their way.

Interesting to see Trump supporters and Clinton haters so nervously opposed to a recount.

If there's nothing to find, there's nothing for you folks to worry about, right?

The fact that you're worried tells us that you actually think there may be serious problems.