Recount in Wisconsin county demanded by Trump increases Biden's margin

Breaking news: Trump's recount in Wisconsin, which he paid $3M for, found MORE votes for Biden, increasing Biden's lead! Too funny! One of the counties, at least. The other one will finish Sunday.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/recount-wisconsin-county-demanded-trump-021011966.html

 

lol, Trump loses again....

 

Guess its lucky they got Trump to pay up front.

....and the cult members will continue to claim fraud. Faith = belief without proof.

 

Trump paid zero and would not have done the recount if he had to use his $$$.

The cult loves throwing their money away

 

Does anybody see the irony in Trump paying for a recount that showed him LOSING WORSE?

Talk about Setting Money on Fire...

 

So recounts find irregularities.

 

Now they will sue to get ballots thrown out. The recount was just a step toward the end goal.

 

Of course, it won't matter in terms of Biden breaking 270.

Biden is already there.

So, let them do what they want.

But, obviously, Wisconsin is going to certify the Electors for Biden in short order.

 

Oh dear. Struggling to interact with reality? After all the claims of fraud based on zero credible evidence that is the best you've got?

Of course recounts find irregularities. If you count millions of votes then it is to be expected that a few hundred or even a few thousand might be misplaced or miscounted. I would bet that it happens in just about every election - tiny, statistically insignificant errors. Now, if a particular election comes down to a few hundred votes - like in 2000 - then a recount may change the result. It may even change it if the difference is a few thousand. However, when you are talking ten, twenty, thirty or over fifty thousand votes then a recount won't change the result.

Either you already know this and you are just being obstuse, you don't know it and are profoundly ignorant, or you just chant the mantras of the Dear Leader without any thought to their truthfulness. All of the above disqualify you from any worthwhile commentary on this topic.

 

They are still fighting PA, AZ, NV, & MI, GA as well, If the Supreme Court decides that appeasing Trump is their primary goal- then everything changes. I don't trust the court and I don't think Trump would have picked ACB if he did not feel that she would help him. Alito & Thomas will support him, so we need to hope that either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh have some ethics or better yet, they refuse to hear any cases. I am not in the camp that thinks that there is a 0% chance that the Supreme Court does not cause issues

 

After seeing how the other Courts dealt with it, you can put me in the camp who thinks that the S.Court won't get involved in any substantial way.

I would be shocked if the SCOTUS gave it anything more than a Per Curiam Rejection.

 

And the lawsuit will fail like all of them have failed so far (even the only one they won, was thrown out on appeal).

 

I hope you and the others are correct as that would end the legal nonsense

 

Oh yes, of course. I should have said, the Trump Campaign paid for it; I misspoke when I said Trump paid for it. And the faithful are sending money to pay for this. The fine print says 60% of the money they donate, stays with Trump for future use, and I don't remember how much more, will be used to settle campaign debts.

 

Andrew Jackson is right, the SCOTUS usually only takes up cases at an impasse at the federal injunction level. These cases, not only aren't at an impasse but are being universally rejected. The SCOTUS is not the President's court(that stupid ruling on the executive order should show that.)

Trump needs a victory at the District Court level first, before even thinking about SCOTUS. The SCOTUS conspiracy theory was just a way for Democrats to peddle donations, they don't believe it in any substantial fashion.

 

Ballots were not reconciled to voter rolls.
You'll be doing it soon however, or kiss your "win" goodbye

 

First of all the SC needs to want to hear the cases. I think there are good chances that they will pass, which will leave intact the decisions of the lower courts.
The only case so far that has had a federal appellate court looking into it is the PA case. So if they take it to the SCOTUS, it will be the decisive one, because if the SCOTUS refuses to hear it, or hears it and dismisses it too, then it's not even worth trying for the AZ, NV, MI, and GA cases.

Now, the problem is, you have to have a reason for the SCOTUS to hear a case. The appellate court dismissed the case for LACK OF EVIDENCE. Their opinion, a panel of three learned judges, doesn't seem to be legally unsound. So, what exactly is the reason for the SCOTUS to hear it?

My guess is that Chief Justice Roberts will pass. Of course, if 4 justices want to hear the case, they can force the issue, but I'm sure that Chief Roberts will strongly oppose it and maybe he still has some influence over the others.

If the case is heard, then I'm quite sure that Chief Roberts will side with the 3 liberals. Then, Trump would need all five others to agree with his lawsuit which has shown ZERO evidence. If they do so, they will mark themselves forever, in the eyes of History, as Trump puppets who ignored the free democratic will of the American people.

I'm not sure if they want this to be their legacy. I think that much more likely than not, at least one of the four will side with Roberts and the three liberals, to put a definitive end to this madness.

At least, this is my hope. There's gotta be some decency left. I don't think Alito and Thomas have any left, but I think Gorsuch or Kavanaugh might, and even Amy Barrett.

Can you imagine how History would see Amy Barrett in this situation? She gets to the court in a rushed and controversial nomination by Trump.. and a month later steals the election for Trump and crushes Democracy and the will of the American People... really, not a good look for her.

It reminds me of the case of Lula, the former Brazilian president. He nominated several justices for their Supreme Court. Then he was caught in a bribery and graft scheme. He was prosecuted and appealed all the way to the SC. His phone was tapped and a recording surfaced of his braggadocio in a conversation with then sitting president Rousseff, the one from his same party who had succeeded him and was trying to obstruct justice to save him (trying to nominate him for a cabinet level position that would give him immunity), saying to her "don't worry, the justices we nominated will take care of it." Well, the justices he had nominated himself, voted against him, canceled his cabinet appointment. He ended up in prison, and she (Rousseff) ended up impeached and removed from office.

So I'm not so sure that Amy Barrett will automatically side with Trump on this. She may surprise us all. We'll see.

 

SCOTUS won't touch cases as fundamentally terrible as the stuff Trump is putting up. It isn't like judges are turfling this stuff based on abstruse points of law or blatant political bias, they are falling apart at a basic level....like actual evidence or legal grounds for the case. There just aren't cases worth taking and there aren't one or two cases that would change the election result. They will have to take multiple, very tenuous cases and then rule in Trump's favour in each one.

That seems like too much of a stretch to me. Such a blatantly political step would be extremely damaging to the court. Won't happen.

 

So... counts weren't accurate? That should be cause for concern for everybody.

 

Some of their cases do not make any sense. In one PA case, they sued to throw out 7 million ballots because 2 ballots in Red counties weren't allowed to be cured. Some of their lawsuits are also over hundreds of votes, no where close enough to change the election. I think their end game is to scream fraud in public and if they win one minor case in court not relevant to fraud, they can scream "see the court agrees there was fraud!"

 

Have you ever heard of the outrageous notion of human error?

 

It clearly shows Trump is cheating by hiding votes.

 

Every time you do a recount, you find a few hundred votes of discrepancy; mere statistically insignificant human error. Recounts of leads that are in the tens of thousands don't really change the overall result. In 2016 Wisconsin had a recount too, and less than 200 votes were different from the first count. So, was Trump's victory in 2016 in Wisconsin illegitimate because there were less than 200 votes difference between the first count and the recount?

This is stuff that happens in all elections, and especially in this one involving 160 million votes, you find a few minor discrepancies.

What the Trump camp is doing, is that they are looking at these minor issues that happen in all elections (and don't affect the result), and calling them widespread intentional fraud.

 

Do you not desire accurate counts? If your candidate wasn't ahead, and counts were shown to be inacurate, would you sing the same song. No.

 

I want accurate counts. You haven't made a good argument in the opposition. Fo you not want accurate counts?