so Hillary still has a chance ??

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I found this very interesting...

http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-one-scenario-that-could-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1291757

For die-hard Democrats holding out hope that they won’t have to live through a Trump presidency, there is a last, incredibly long shot for them latch on to — a surprise twist in the Electoral College.

Though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 200,000, Trump has won the minimum of 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected president. As of late Wednesday, he had 290 to Clinton’s 228.

According to the Constitution, chosen electors of the Electoral College are the real people who will vote for president, when they meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals.

However, there is technically nothing stopping any of the electors from voting their conscience and refusing to support the candidate to whom they were bound, or from abstaining from voting altogether.

There’s even a name for it: becoming a “faithless elector.”

The idea of electors reversing their vote is rarely discussed — and was most recently bandied about after the incredibly close 2000 election in which George Bush narrowly beat Al Gore. And electors going “faithless” is exceedingly rare.

Well over 99 percent of electors throughout American history have voted as pledged, according to an analysis done by the New York Times.

It does happen, though.

The last faithless elector reared his roguish head back in 2004, when a lone anonymous voter in Minnesota declined to vote for Democrat John Kerry and instead voted for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards.

The rogue’s vote was purely ceremonial, as Bush already had 286 electoral votes, more than enough to ensure his reelection.

Faithless electors are technically barred in only 29 states from ignoring the will of the voters, though the penalties are light. And a faithless elector has never swung an election.

But given the high dissatisfaction with Trump among Republicans, a few faithless GOP electors could well go rogue next month.

One Texas GOP elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, a firefighter, told Politico in August that he finds Trump so unpalatable he’d consider voting for Clinton on Dec. 19th.

Baoky Vu, a Decatur businessman, told the Atlanta-based news site AJC.com in August that he couldn’t stomach voting for Trump either, and was quietly convinced by local GOP leaders to resign as an elector.

Clinton would need more than 20 GOP electors to go rogue and vote instead for her — a mighty tall order.

Even then, the new, Republican-controlled Congress meets Jan. 6 to approve the electoral college vote, and would certainly vote to void any roguery, handing the victory firmly back to Trump.

The Founding Fathers created the electoral college because the were “afraid of direct Democracy,” according to FactCheck.org.

In fact, Alexander Hamilton thought the electors would make sure “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

It remains to be seen, given Tuesday’s surprise election result, whether Democrats — and even some Republicans — who question the “requisite qualifications” of president-elect Donald Trump will push to revisit the Electoral College system.

 

InsideGov | Graphiq

 

 

[CoAspen]

I've heard/read that time is too short to actually have recounts completed. Electoral college reversing, doubt it. There is always talk of changing the direction but it remains the same, those at the top with money and position will rule.

[bonnie]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/flashback-hillary-called-trump-sore-loser-not-accepting-results/

So is Hillary Clinton a sore loser whose words are not to be trusted?

Flashback"

I have to admit, you know, when we were both asked the question, I assumed that he would say what everybody has always said, which is, hey of course, because to say you won’t respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy,” Clinton said to cheers.

“Some people are sore losers and he gotta just keep going,” she added.

 

 

After the October 19th debate, Clinton said it was “horrifying” to hear Trump might not accept the election results.

[Tom Wetmore]

Recounts and audits of election results are a legitimate part of the American electoral process. Not really about being a sore loser. If you took the time to statement by the Clinton campaign and the legal counsel for the campaign, it really doesn't sound like being a sore loser. What is wrong with insuring fairness and integrity of elections?

I would say the "winner" being upset is showing poor "sportsmanship".  Sort of like he is afraid that his sore loser claims ahead of the election of a rigged election might have actually come from a certain knowledge of things to come...  He is now sounding like he has something to hide.

[bonnie]

54 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Recounts and audits of election results are a legitimate part of the American electoral process. Not really about being a sore loser. If you took the time to statement by the Clinton campaign and the legal counsel for the campaign, it really doesn't sound like being a sore loser. What is wrong with insuring fairness and integrity of elections?

I would say the "winner" being upset is showing poor "sportsmanship".  Sort of like he is afraid that his sore loser claims ahead of the election of a rigged election might have actually come from a certain knowledge of things to come...  He is now sounding like he has something to hide.

Nothing is wrong with insuring fairness of elections except when Trump implied he might not accept the first result according to Clinton it would be “horrifying” to hear Trump might not accept the election results.

When she is not willing to accept it is to insure fairness. Typical Clinton supporters rationale

[Tom Wetmore]

I would say how one understands those statements depends on what point in time in the process they were speaking of.  

2 hours ago, bonnie said:

Typical Clinton supporters rationale

And yours a typical Trump supporter response...  

[CoAspen]

Quote

Later in the day, Trump practically offered his support for the recount, providing a seemingly baseless allegation that he would have won the popular vote "if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."

Millions voted illegally

I you voted for him it was legal, aganinst him illegal! Its rigged if you lose, but works correctly if you win!m The Wisconsin recount is by the Green Party candidate, HC campaign official offered help to make sure all was fair. They have not called anything 'rigged' as the Winner did and still does so often.

Life goes on...samo-samo.......

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I would say how one understands those statements depends on what point in time in the process they were speaking of.  

And yours a typical Trump supporter response...  

Actually I thought Trump was out of line when he called the election rigged. Altho It may have been a concern the way the DNC rigged it for Hillary and gave Sanders the shaft. Still there should be some proof of "rigging".

Do I support Trump over Hillary,in a heart beat. Do I believe him to be the paragon of virtue and the poor persecuted victim you see Hillary as, Nope. 

[bonnie]

59 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Millions voted illegally

I you voted for him it was legal, aganinst him illegal! Its rigged if you lose, but works correctly if you win!m The Wisconsin recount is by the Green Party candidate, HC campaign official offered help to make sure all was fair. They have not called anything 'rigged' as the Winner did and still does so often.

Life goes on...samo-samo.......

I don't quite understand the illegal million votes. Many times the democrats have stated emphatically illegal voting is only a myth.

Trump and his run away mouth does not take away from Hillary's double standard

[Tom Wetmore]

11 hours ago, bonnie said:

Do I believe him to be the paragon of virtue and the poor persecuted victim you see Hillary as, Nope. 

Another excellent example of your extreme bias coloring your perception of others and their statements.  It causes you to misunderstand what is said and read everything through the cloudy lens of your own partisan POV.  Putting words in others mouth that are actually from your own head, not theirs. 

[bonnie]

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Another excellent example of your extreme bias coloring your perception of others and their statements.  It causes you to misunderstand what is said and read everything through the cloudy lens of your own partisan POV.  Putting words in others mouth that are actually from your own head, not theirs. 

Nope. Altho I have no problem agreeing I am biased against Hillary Clinton. I believe she is one of the most corrupt politicians.  But as to your accusation or statement,you and a couple of others here have claimed she is innocent as she has not been found guilty in a court of law. It is a conspiracy against her.

Her blatant lies concerning her husband to the american people is seen as somehow a heroic effort on her part to save her marriage. As Trump was not a politician for what he has been accused of and has not been found guilty in a court of law, it remains to be seen whether he will be a corrupt politician. While I am not waiting with bated breath for Trump to make good on all he campaigned on, I do hope he does on a few issues.Those that convinced myself and others at the very last to vote for him. 

Regardless  of how Hillary Clinton backpedals and does what she accuses Trump of ,you and others will find ways to claim it is different when she does it. Interesting that not even Obama claims there are signs of hacking  and or other issues that would overturn the election.  Quite the opposite the last I read. Both blame others for their problems and failures altho Clinton has had the years to perfect it to an art form. Rather than joining in the recount demand perhaps Clinton could show a little class and remember..... “horrifying” to hear Trump might not accept the election results.

With the cheating with questions in the debate and the treatment of Bernie Sanders and the firing of Debbie Wasserman Shultz,the illegal immigrants encouraged to vote Trump has a little more cause to suspect fruad

 

 

 

[bonnie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-foster/democrats-benefit-from-illegal-immigrants-voting_b_1418523.html

 

So has anything changed and now proof of citizenship is required to register to vote

 

Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting

 04/13/2012 09:26 am ET | Updated Jun 13, 2012

 

Howard Foster Lawyer

Why are Democrats so uniformly opposed to proof of citizenship in order to vote? They and their interest group surrogates insist there is no problem with voter security. But why should we believe this when we know illegal immigrants routinely lie to obtain employment? (Federal law requires employees to sign a document called an I-9 Form upon becoming employed swearing under penalty of perjury that he or she is authorized for employment, i.e., is a citizen or lawfully admitted alien and to provide two forms of ID to prove it.) I have seen thousands of bogus I-9 Forms signed by illegal immigrants and copies of their false social security cards in my RICO cases against employers who hire them. These false attestations are rarely prosecuted by federal authorities. And why would we think illegal immigrants, whose very presence in this country is a crime, would be above a little more crime in order to obtain employment?

Once that is understood, why would we think illegal immigrants would not also lie to obtain medical care in public hospitals, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and register to vote? Only two states actually require proof of citizenship in order to register (Arizona and Kansas). The others merely require the applicant sign a sworn statement attesting to the fact that he or she is a citizen. But this is what is asked, and routinely perjured, on the I-9 Form. Thus, it follows that false claims of citizenship in order to register to vote should be widespread. There are some media reports of non-citizens voting, but generally, the media have not investigated the problem in any depth compared to their obsession with the insurmountable problem Republicans will have with Hispanic “voters.”

The perceived trouble Republicans face, we are constantly told, stems from the party’s opposition to illegal immigration. And perhaps there is a kernel of truth to this theory. It stands to reason that illegal immigrants who are illegally registered to vote would have a very real stake in seeing to it that Republicans do not come to power with their far right ideas about requiring proof of citizenship to vote (which has been required since the founding of the Republic) and to be employed in this country. After all, if these laws were seriously enforced, it might be intolerable for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S. They would, presumably, lose employment, subsidized medical care, and the right to vote for candidates for will perpetuate such a way of life.

Democratic party spokesmen justify their opposition to laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote by the absurd claim that poor people do not have birth certificates or passports. But we require everyone, including the poor, to produce such documents when becoming employed for their I-9 Forms. And if that is tolerable, then it must also be tolerable for the same documents to be produced to register to vote and some sort of photo ID in order to vote.

There is a huge problem with voter fraud. And, in my opinion, it is proven by the vehemence of the Democrats, the beneficiaries of the fraud, toward enforcement of our laws.