Some people are claiming a large number of illegals casted votes for Hillary in CA. It would be interesting to do an audit to see if that is the case. Why only recount and audit states Trump won? Hmmmmmm...
You want him to link you to the official elections websites for all 50 states? Do it yourself. You're the one implying the vote count is incorrect, despite overwhelming evidence. The burden is on you to disprove this claim.
There were actually multiple reports, prosecutions, and investigations of people illegally voting for Trump twice. Is there evidence that people illegally voted for Clinton in equal or greater numbers?
looking at this and it just seems inconceivable for Black to have castled into this situation or not to have either had a check move (bE6) or to have taken teh bishop with the knight the move before being placed into mate.
I'm not making the claim of "overwhelming evidence" that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The burden is on the person(s) claiming there is such "overwhelming evidence".
So a couple of hillbillies voting twice warrants a recount? Let's also not forget the dominant reason being given for a recount: Supposed Russian tampering. How likely is that? About as likely as millions of illegals casting votes in CA.
It's literally being reported at every news source. If you don't believe the news, you are welcome to check the Secretaries of State websites for each of the 50 states to see the officially reported totals. Here, I'll give you a head start: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AR/63912/184144/Web01/en/summary.html
One thing that would really help in this whole recount thing is every single news/media outlet that reports on this also has a segment on the math & theory behind how someone can win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. That way the "it's not fair" crowd will at least have the opportunity to know why their crying is foolish.
From your own link Q: What's the deal in California? A: It's the largest state, with some of the most permissive voting procedures.
No. But then again, Hillary Clinton lost the election so I don't really give a damn how California voted. In actuality, I don't give a damn about California anyway.
There are a couple of places I wouldn't mind seeing. But then again there are lots of places I would like to see but have not the least bit interest in remaining there or what happens to it after I'm gone.
Indeed - so it wouldn't take that much time or effort to explain it. At least make sure everyone is up to speed on both sides.
It was the Ozarks To be fair, I think your sentiment, while perhaps harsh, isn't an uncommon one, as our sense of place tends to anchor us to certain areas and eschewing others.
Don't know where specifically you were but the Ozarks tend to be in western Arkansas and more northernly. And northwest Arkansas is one of the wealthiest regions in the United States.
Well, the last civil war started with the (legal) election of a president whom the other side considered completely unacceptable. Sound familiar? And Lincoln had the popular vote. 37 electors could flip, not to Clinton, but to, say, Mitt Romney. The House chooses among the three and Romney becomes president. He's a moderate and a decent human being. Acceptable compromise.
37 electors can not flip to Romney. The US Constitution is clear. The electors can only vote for who was on their ballot in their state. So in most states you would have Trump, Clinton, Stein, Johnson, and a couple others. Romney did not run and so has no votes in any state.
