Jill Stein, Hillary and The “Voter Fraud” Fraud

(( Disclaimer: I’m not a Trump Supporter. I didn’t vote for either of the two Major Party Candidates. I didn’t vote for Stein, although I agree with at least some of what she said in the campaign. ))

I do not want this post to be a back and forth, debate or argument on the merits of Hillary or the demerits of Trump. For my opinion, none of these three are fit for the Office of the Presidency, but our election in November is done. Attempts to overturn or subvert the results without preexisting evidence of voter fraud that would have changed the outcome are illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous. They are not in the interests of anyone but Hillary Clinton and her gang of Progressive Democrats, who want to win, gain and keep power by any means necessary. Even illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous means. 

If I have to close the comments to keep this post from going south, I will. Please don’t take that personally, I’m just not going to argue or trade insults back and forth. Please respect my wishes. thank you in advance. -kia 

——-

(CNN) Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein defended her recount efforts Monday, even though she admits there is no evidence of fraud at the ballot box.

“What we have are predictors that if tampering took place, it would be most likely to be discovered in the three states where we are looking,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on “Anderson Cooper 360.”

“Unless we actually look, we would never know,” she said.

“But without having the evidence, aren’t you actually contributing, perhaps unfairly, to that lack of confidence in the system itself?” Cooper asked Stein.

What she’s ‘contributing to’ is an attempt to steal the election and subvert the legal and Constitutional voting system… with absolutely no evidence, but her ‘predictors’ that Hillary ‘should have won’ in those states. 

Translation: “We believe Hillary should have won those states, we believe only fraud would have kept the Inevitable Coronation from happening, so there must have been fraud… and we’re going to look till we find what we’re looking for.”

If Jill Stein were a policeman or a law enforcement investigator, which she is not, she would know that the 4th amendment to the Constitution prohibits arrest or unlawful searches and seizures without demonstrated “probable cause”. She and others have freely and sadly admitted they have none, yet are being allowed to Arrest the process and Seize the election results in order to “look for” their Probable Cause after the fact. 

It’s a fishing expedition in vain hope of overturning the election results in favor of Hillary Clinton… that’s right. Jill has no delusions that millions of voters that ‘would have voted’ for her were actually disenfranchised. No. She’s the front person for Hillary’s camp that although they want to challenge the election results openly, conceded the election and still want to give the Presidential appearance of propriety. 

You think all those donors who are giving Stein 7 and 8 million dollars for the recounts are doing it for Stein? No. Think again. What’s happening is absurd and another example of why Hillary Clinton and her brand of Progressive Democrats shouldn’t never get anywhere close to the Whitehouse again.

This also is being broadcast and publicized for Intimidation and Manipulation purposes for the ‘benefit’ of the members of the Electoral College. Along with the emails, phone calls, and even death threats these Hillary supporters are sending their way, the recount process itself, with Jill Stein knowing full well there is no prior evidence (read Probable Cause) to believe Fraud has occurred to deny Hillary her Rightful Crown, and almost everybody, even on the left and probably Jill Stein herself, knowing that such an effort will most likely not yield the results she and they want… a second Clinton in the Oval Office, they are doing it anyways… in efforts to intimidate and manipulate the Electors, who meet on December 19, to change their votes.

They are trying to subvert the legal and Constitutional system of election in our country by intimidating the Electors to change the outcome of the People’s Votes in the States they represent. This is not a recount to uphold Democracy and the Constitution, but to subvert and overthrow them… and based on what Jill Stein has admitted there is no actual evidence for.

Objectivity Test:

If this was an Operative of or for Donald Trump, and the reverse were the case, Hillary had won, and say, Reince Priebus was trying to overturn the election by committing this kind of Electoral College Fraud and Intimidation… what do you think would be the cry from the mainstream media? 

They’d be calling for his head… he’d be arrested and put in jail for trying to overthrow and subvert the Constitution and election laws, and he’d be charged with treason against the American People and the Federal Government.

Instead, Jill Stein is on every TV station and cable news network. Progressive Democrats… not her Green Party supporters… are shelling out millions of dollars to help her do what they want to also, overturn the results of the November election and seat Hillary Clinton as the 45th President of the United States. They couldn’t get it done Legally and Constitutionally, so they will just Steal it by perpetrating the “Voter Fraud Fraud”.

This is what the Progressive Democratic Party stands for. Power by any means necessary. 

-kia

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Jill Stein, Hillary and The “Voter Fraud” Fraud

  1. As I read your take on the situation, I couldn’t help but think back to when tRump repeatedly claimed the election was “rigged.”

    Oct 19, 2016, CNN.com – “Remember, we are competing in a rigged election”
    Oct 17, 2016, BusinessInsider.com – “Donald Trump claims the election will be ‘rigged'”
    Nov 8, 2016, CNBC.com – “It’s largely a rigged system.”

    Had he not won, do you honestly think he would not have called for a recount?

    Liked by 1 person

    • And I remember how Hillary and the Dems repeatedly said that Trump was being horrific by suggesting he might not accept the results of the election.
      We will never know if he would have called for a recount but hypotheticals of what he woyld or would not have done don’t speak to the propriety of what’s actually happening now. Trump isn’t the one not accepting the results and trying to subvert the election results.

      Like

      • From my limited research of reputable news sources, there is no indication that Stine is a “surrogate” for Hillary.

        The Economist indicates Stein is doing this because she’s concerned about the “hackability” of voting systems in the “wake of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s network,” among other reasons.

        While Hillary has joined the effort and may be financially contributing, that could simply mean she shares Stine’s concerns. It’s already been noted that it’s highly doubtful the recount will have any bearing on election results.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Your preamble defines your unshakable bias. By pretending you have no dog in this fight, you vote for neither. you think this gives you street cred to then vilify Clinton by any way you can. What’s true no longer matters. That Clinton won the popular vote by a count of almost three million isn’t even worth mentioning by you. that this number may in fact be quite higher if systems were hacked is something you care not whit about. What you care about is vilifying Clinton. That’s it.

    This is standard denialist tactics. By claiming impartiality, (just like ‘skeptics’ of scientific consensus on global warming ) you think this allows you the freedom from responsibility for helping to create and support a Trump heavy electoral college while at the same time pretending the college vote is sacrosanct from review. It’s not and never has been.

    You do have a dog in this fight, KIA, and it’s plainly anything-but-Clinton… including the loss not just of your country’s position of leadership in the world but the decent into fascism. You just don’t care as long as Clinton can be vilified. And if you lose your freedoms, you’re going to pretend it was all somehow Clinton;s fault that you could be so gullible and so naive to fall into this denialist camp and actively cheer in your country’s downfall.

    Your rationalized thinking here is a marvel to behold. If you thought the same way medically, you’d already be dead as would every member of your family busy vilifying, say, Big Pharma.

    Liked by 2 people

      • That’s why the method of thinking – the means by which we reason – is so important. Good reasoning takes an element of discipline. Show me where I make a reasoning mistake and I’ll be the first one to change my opinion. This is why I always lay out my reasoning to an opinion… not to rant or write a ridiculous lengthy comment but to expose my methodical line of reasoning to examination… because I’m as likely to be biased as the next person but too close to see where I go wrong. As a good Bayesian thinker, if a line of reasoning I make meets no correction from critics (but is subject to a variety of pooh-pooh-ishness from others with different opinions), then I raise my level of confidence in it accordingly. If I encounter a good criticism, then I lower it. My opinions are not a reflection of my identity but simply a snapshot of a state of mind… a state that can just as easily be shifted as not. In this sense, I have dog in almost every fight but I certainly respect better informed opinions than others. And KIA’s opinion here – like millions of other Americans – is badly skewed and a stellar example of how not to reason..

        Liked by 2 people

  3. KIA, as you know I disagree with you, and so I disagree with the whole post. However the reasons I disagreed with you before I feel are already aired and I feel no need to repeat them and as they say ” beat a dead horse”. To address the points of your post, I would like to take a few minutes of time.

    I see no reason to stop a recount that is legal under law. I did not find reason to try to stop it on state level when done by governors even after it turned out the challenger lost the count by more than the normal recount law allows for a recount. I was upset when it was stopped in 2000, in my opinion illegally. There is nothing wrong with recounting the votes to make sure we got the count correct. Recounts have found problems even when they have not overturned elections. That is the real point of them. Find problems if there are any. I often recount things I am counting to make sure I did not make a counting error.

    As for the electors, I am not in agreement with bad faith electors. I don’t like the idea they can overturn the will of the people with no penalty. However I would say to those who like to preach living by the constitution and making our laws based on them… the constitution provides for just this action. It is clearly spelled out and the intent was clearly written by the framers of the constitution. They wanted to make sure that no matter the will of the people, a person unfit to serve wouldn’t be allowed to be president. I deem Trump unfit. However that said, it is a double edged sword. If one says it is OK now, what if it is used against their wishes in the future? So while legal and definitely in the will of the framers of the constitution, I would caution against using it.

    Be well. Hugs

    Like

  4. For me the bigger issue is why one of the most technologically-advanced nations hasn’t implemented better polling stations. Ideally, such a system would allow voters to enter their PIN’d registration number (to unlock the terminal one time only), select candidates on a touch-screen (thus avoiding spoiled ballots), issue a paper receipt verifying their selection, and produce an anonymous audit trail for state verification. Come on, already! It’s the current year.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I do wonder if Jill Stein is trying to deal with some guilt that she may have cost Hillary Clinton the election by drawing votes from Hillary Clinton in these three states.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nah… don’t think there’s any guilt at all. Who says all those Jill Stein votes would have just gone to Hillary? Hillary cost herself the votes she didn’t earn

      Like

  6. I heard a BBC report today in regard to the problems in getting accurate opinion polls in the US. An opinion pollster said that a few factors had converged to make polls less accurate over the last 8 years:
    – the very rapid transition from landline telephones to cell phones;
    – US laws that forbid pollsters using automatic dialing machines to ring cell phones (they can use these to ring landlines);
    – greater use of answering machines;
    – people’s increasing reluctance to respond to unsolicited calls.

    Internet polling is on the increase but suffers from being unbalanced as a sampling source.

    In essence the expert was saying that the situation has changed so dramatically over the last eight years that the industry really no longer knows how it will be able to undertake reliable polling going forward.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I am bemused at Jill Stein, she raises $7 million to pay for the recount, then says she can’t proceed in Pennsylvania because they want a $1 million bond. Something fishy going on here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nothing fishy. She prob downstairs really think the recount will help hillary, so she’s going to sue… With what she admits she has no evidence for, and no standing to say she herself was harmed and she would have won.
      She doing this as a surrogate for hillary and her own aggrandisement

      Like

        • I have done a bit more digging around and I think I have a better idea of why Jill Stein does not want to pay the $1 million bond. It seems that the Wisconsin recount might now cost between $3.5 and $4.4 million, far more than originally thought. So it may be simply that she no longer has enough money to cover recounts in all three states.

          Human nature makes us quick to look for conspiracy, but sometimes the plain answer is staring us in the face, but we reject it because it does not align with our prejudice.

          Liked by 3 people

  8. A question that some political observers should ponder is ‘How is that the Republicans easily win the House of Representatives in the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections?’

    Well a few years back I read an article in the Economist where they observed that some very odd things were going on in the drawing of Congressional Boundaries. In essence the Republicans have cunningly given themselves a lot of safe districts, where the margin is comfortable, but not overwhelming and then either made the Democrat seats either marginal or overwhelmingly safe.

    What this means is that if on a two party basis the Republicans get half the vote then they should win more than half the seats.

    I was interested to see that some folk are starting to fight back against this with lawsuits proceeding now in both North Carolina and Virginia:
    http://www.wral.com/us-supreme-court-to-draw-lines-on-nc-gerrymandering-case/16297884/

    Liked by 2 people

        • There’s nothing left to argue. Russian interference – and the acceptance of it by The Donald and his Team of enablers as a handy means to political end – is a fact.

          The issue for you – not me – is why you continue to believe that the security risk you attribute to Clinton’s use of an email service is somehow a condemnation of her character, whereas the ACTUAL and gross security breach undertaken at the request of The Donald and his team of Misfit Toys is somehow less of a security concern for you.

          That line of rationalizing by you indicates a significant breakdown of reasoned thinking and demonstrates a substitution of partisan allegiance over and above respecting what is true and indicates a willingness on your part to operate in reality – politically, at least – based on a fiction you prefer rather than as things really are.

          This dysfunction is a huge problem suffered by way too many of your citizens that cannot help but lead to significant and pernicious problems greater than the ones we currently face today. You are contributing to promoting these problems by maintaining your irrational thinking on the basis of partisan allegiance/vilification. You need to fix that broken thinking and get the order right: start granting to reality final arbitrator rights to inform your beliefs about it and stop respecting your partisan beliefs and desire to vilify at all costs to define how realty ought to be. There’s a disconnect here and it belongs fully to you.

          Liked by 1 person

            • I don’t need a whambulance, Ron. We- the human race that is concerned about human activities – need you to stop thinking your beliefs define reality. They don’t. Never have,.never will. We need you to start respecting reality to arbitrate your beliefs about it. That is the only way to even begin effectively addressing issues and concerns that concern us all. Respecting reality is the baseline necessary if you want anything you have to say about anything mean anything realistic.

              Now is the time to put away childish things, Ron.

              Liked by 1 person

              • lol… The reality is that your candidate lost. Deal with i—or don’t.

                “It’s not what happens to you that determines how far you will go in life; it is how you handle what happens to you.” ~Zig Ziglar

                Like

              • I fully respect the electoral college’s vote. That’s not the issue, Ron. It’s getting people like you to understand how your partisanship allegiances and willingness to vilify those who do not share it warp and skew your thinking to such a degree that it produces reality denying opinions.

                You can and should fix that by simply switching the order of how to arrive at rather than impose your beliefs.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Under the auspices of Clinton being a Very Bad Person Dangerous To The Well-being of America, you wave away the deplorable actions – actually traitorous – committed by the next Commander-in-Chief. Such actions matter, Ron.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Show me the criticisms you make of Trump’s use of Russian intelligence, where you decry the hostile actions by the Russians hacking and then leaking Clinton’s emails. Demonstrate why you understand just how dangerous going along and even championing this kind of foreign intelligence operation is.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Upthread, Ron. Go the site and watch and listen to each Intelligence Director your government relies on and the Chair of the Intelligence oversight committee talk about the “overwhelming evidence” they keep telling us about and people like you and KIA ignore. They even explain why you should be so concerned… not that you are or not that you’re willing to replace that privileged skepticism you like to whip out and expose from time to time in spite of overwhelming compelling evidence..

                Like

              • I’m seeking tangible empirical evidence, not the NSA director’s assertions to such. And while your gathering that evidence, please tell me explain the NSA’s rai·son d’ê·tre?

                Like

              • Ron, you’re not skeptical. You’re obdurate. Your opinion in this matter is intractable. I have no doubt I could haul Putin Himself in front of you and admit to ordering the hack and release of selected emails and you would think is was a Left wing conspiracy funded by Clinton.

                You are a piece of work.

                Liked by 1 person

              • “I refuse to show evidence on the grounds you wouldn’t believe it anyways.” is the go-to rebuttal of every apologist tasked to substantiate their claims with empirical evidence.

                Like

              • Right. You expect me to disregard all the Directors of the involved intelligence agencies, disregard the Chair of the Intelligence committee, and go with… Ron, who thinks himself a ‘proper’ skeptic.

                Riiight.

                Liked by 1 person

              • I expect you to provide evidence. And assertions do not constitute evidence. Otherwise I would have to accept every assertion as fact. Either back up your claim with concrete evidence or concede that you are relying on hearsay.

                Like

              • It’s not hearsay when the appropriate people with the appropriate security clearance and appropriate state authority all tell us the same thing. In addition, we have Russians themselves – including the Russian Chief of Internal Security bragging about it to their American counterpart. We have Interpol telling us this is the case. We have the Canadian intelligence service telling us the same thing. But wait… we can’t trust all of them and consider their mutual testimony to be sufficient. We have to hold Clinton in higher doubt, you see, because she might have been a security risk compared to a man who IS a security risk and has demonstrated to be a security risk, a man who has asked the Russians to hack internal emails of a political rival and spoon feed him emails that after a full review yield not one bit of illegality. No sir. Only Ron and few other denialists of reality tell us we need to be more skeptical of this fact, that we need more evidence to suit them – knowing full well that Ron and his ilk will never, ever, submit their opinion to the full brunt of reality.

                Good grief, but you’re a wonder of gullibility and confirmation bias, a shining example of just how steadfast you will maintain an opinion contrary to reality of it suits your belief. This meets the very definition of delusional thinking, Ron. You are delusional and no longer rational in this regard..

                Liked by 1 person

              • Are you referring to the same people who were certain that Saddam had WMDs, suspended habeas corpus and insisted they don’t torture people?

                Ya, I think I’ll pass.

                Like

              • Again, notice the immediate turn to vilification Ron uses rather than deal straight up with the reality I say is more important, namely, the intentional actions of a foreign and hostile government invited by The Donald to interfere in a US election and how people like Ron couldn’t care less… as long as it wasn’t done by that Nasty Woman. Then… well, only then do these people claim we’ve got a real problem.

                Unbelievable denialism in action. Broken thinking. Irrational rationalizations.

                Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s