MI recount: fresh details emerging on widespread discrepencies in Detroit precincts

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
Wouldnt it be sh*thouse if the democrats cheated (but it wasnt enough) then used their cheating to say the election is invalid as there was widespread cheating.

Yes, that's called a "Texas Hedge."

a reply to: Arizonaguy

That`s just insane, what would be the purpose of recounting if not to clear up discrepencies in the number of ballots cast and the number of votes counted?

a reply to: Tardacus

That's what it seems to be. Count ALL the precincts Trump won, but let more than 50% of Hillary's votes go uncontested, even though they are the only ones found to have discrepancies

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Michigan should have been overwhelmingly for Clinton. The fact that if a label on a bag doesn't match the number of ballots in a bag cannot be recounted is just nuts.

Only because Detroit supposedly "votes" Democrat. They are saying there are problems ie machine counts aren't lining up with ballot counts.

Ha, from that statement the most logical conclusion is that the Democrats have created some more ballots post Nov 8th and now the counts don't match the recorded numbers from election day.

a reply to: reldra

Michigan should have been overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Oh Really ? You Know Everyone in the State Personally ? The People in Michigan lived through 8 Years of the Dems Failed Socialist Experiment , and like the Rest of the Country they Had Enough . Flint and Detroit are just 2 Cities there that were Begging for a Change .

a reply to: reldra

“Michigan should have been overwhelmingly for Clinton”


Why would you say Michigan should have gone to Hillary?

1. BECAUSE SHE WAS THE WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE THEY COULD HAVE PUT FORTH (CORRUPTION, LYING, AT LEAST TRIED TO PUT FORTH THE MESSAGE SHE WAS TOO SICK TO BE PRESIDENT)
2. BECAUSE SHE HAD NO GOOD MESSAGE (“I’M A WOMAN VOTE FOR ME”, BECAUSE I ‘M NARCISSISTIC AND I DESERVE IT”)
3. BECAUSE SHE ACCIDENTALLY (MAYBE NOT SO ACCIDENTAL) SAID IN A SPEECH SHE WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS
4. BECAUSE SHE WAS SO LAZY SHE LET THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA CAMPAIGN FOR HER AND DID NOT EVEN GO OUT AND CAMPAIGN FOR ALMOST 300 DAYS. WHILE TRUMP WAS AT TIMES HAVING A RALLY AT 5 CITIES IN A SINGLE DAY.

I am from Michigan, and I want to know just why I was supposed to vote for this disaster, instead of for Trump

Discrepancies in the vote totals from Democrat Detroit that almost certainly favor Hillary? Imagine that. I'm just absolutely shocked. OK, maybe not so much.

The hilarious thing about this recount is that the Dems are giving the Trump administration all the justification in the world to push for a widespread investigation of such 'discrepancies' after inauguration day.

Sounds like it was extra votes regardless of how ballot was filled out. Optical scanner issues that they knew about but did not correct. But wayne went to hillary 2:1. Negligence or bad intent is a good question.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Ha, from that statement the most logical conclusion is that the Democrats have created some more ballots post Nov 8th and now the counts don't match the recorded numbers from election day.

This is what I'm thinking. The geniuses who run Wayne County tried to stuff in a bunch of extra Hillary votes, not realizing that the state does keep track of how many votes were cast, to protect against exactly this kind of cheating.

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Could you imagine how heart broken all these "Hillary or nothing" backers will be if the recount gives Trump an even larger margin of victory ?

How do you handle, demanding your opponent accept the initial vote count ? Then you are part of calling for a recount, just to lose by an even larger margin?

I am not saying this would be the case, but it would make for some interesting on the MSM.

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

So it would seem that in Detroit, where Hillary won 2:1, that there are more votes than ballots... if I didn't know any better, I might be silly enough to think that Hillary is the beneficiary of this cheating -- oops! I meant extra votes, of course. In fact, this would seem to actually corroborate the theory that such cheating works best in those precincts with the closest margins, where a few extra votes won't be noticed... unless, of course, someone demands a recount and those extra votes are discovered. In which case it would also appear that Hillary and the DNC were prompted to join the recount in order to cover their own sorry butts...

But then I'd also have to believe that maybe Jill Stein really wasn't demanding a recount to benefit Hillary, because this doesn't help Hillary at all, and I have it on very good authority that Jill Stein's ONLY motivation was to help Hillary.

Oh what a conundrum!!!

Stein had no reason for a recount other than help HILLARY. now if a box was sealed with 500 ballots and reopened and has 600 the law says throw it out. Somebody didn't know the numbers had to match. You can be sure they will go to court again if they do throw them out.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Michigan should have been overwhelmingly for Clinton. The fact that if a label on a bag doesn't match the number of ballots in a bag cannot be recounted is just nuts.

Live in Michigan?? Do you even drive around Michigan?....... Trump bumper stickers everywhere.... Trump on front lawns all over the place....... Hilary anything was a rare sight. Quite the opposite of when Obama stickers and signs were everywhere

originally posted by: Zimnydran

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Michigan should have been overwhelmingly for Clinton. The fact that if a label on a bag doesn't match the number of ballots in a bag cannot be recounted is just nuts.

Live in Michigan?? Do you even drive around Michigan?....... Trump bumper stickers everywhere.... Trump on front lawns all over the place....... Hilary anything was a rare sight. Quite the opposite of when Obama stickers and signs were everywhere

I live in Oakland County, a major Democratic stronghold in the state. Even here, there was noticeably less support for Hillary than there was for Obama in 2008 & 2012. It didn't surprise me in the least to find out that Michigan was "in play" this time.

They chose not to recount PA because of tens of thousands of reports of votes switching.

You don't want to piss off PA, were the number wrestling state in the country every year for a reason.

They chose not to recount PA because of tens of thousands of reports of votes switching.

You don't want to piss off PA, were the number wrestling state in the country every year for a reason.

Oh this is rich...

Presidential votes from at least six Ingham County precincts won't be a part of the official recount process, and that total is expected to increase, officials said Tuesday afternoon.

Some ballot bags from those precincts were damaged in transit to the Ingham County Fairgrounds, where about 75 workers were busy recounting roughly 136,000 ballots, Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum said. There are 115 precincts in the county.

Some bags ripped at the seam when workers simply picked them up by the handles, she said. In other cases, plastic seals were damaged when another bag was stacked on top or in some other way.

Lansing State Journal

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

This part of their recount policy does not make sense:

According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.
...
“The certified election results would stand if a precinct is determined to be non-recountable,” Byrum told reporters.

If they are going to recount, isn't the whole purpose to be sure that the ballots match the poll books and totals?
I don't understand why if the totals don't match - they would just accept the original certified results.
Doesn't that completely undermine the entire purpose of a recount?

I think that if this changes the outcome of the election, Trump would certainly have good cause to appeal.

Because it shows the bags have been tampered with after the fact in an attempt to skew the numbers of a recount. You lose? Stuff the boxes with "votes" for you and ask for a recount. It's a means to prevent this exact scenario, and once it becomes clear there was box stuffing that happened after the voting, the only realistic thing you can do is go with the original tally. Why is that hard to understand? What policy would you propose? Count them anyway even though they have been clearly tampered with?