Here’s What The Dems Are Really Planning With The Recounts

28 Nov, 2016 by McIntosh

Print this article Font size -16+

The media hype is that Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her seemingly new partner in crime, Hillary Clinton, are raising money and making a bunch of ruckus in three states to “preserve the integrity of the vote.” What a load of horse dung. The Democrats and Green Party want to preserve the integrity of this whole mess? There ain’t a shred of integrity in Hillary Clinton. Give up. Go home. Stay there and leave Americans in peace.

There’s a hypothesis drifting around that there was some sort of mischief at the voting machines in some areas that supposedly had under-counted Hillary’s vote, according to, well, the loser. Go figure.

This is a total waste of money and time, as recounts are only occasionally effective, but only when the difference is relatively close, not tens of thousands of votes off.

This has absolutely zero to do with the honesty of the vote or even trying to right a supposed wrong. It’s all about meddling with the Electoral College and trying to claim a false Trump victory at the same time. They lost the Electoral College. That’s it.

Stein, again, the loser, is demanding a recount of Wisconsin’s ballots and they have only til the Dec. 13th deadline for their 10 electoral votes to count. She’s also attempting to do the same thing in Michigan and Pennsylvania. She is trying to force a recount that will be nearly impossible to complete by the deadline.

You want to talk about ‘integrity’?…

So how does this affect the electors when they meet on Dec. 19th in their respective state capitals and those three key states are not represented due to lack of time? Simple. A total high-jack, with Trump only getting 260 Electoral College votes – ten less than the majority needed.

The The American Thinker explains it here:

‘Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

…

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.’