RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Wasserman writes: "Donald Trump says there were 3 million fraudulent voters in a 'rigged' election he lost by more than 2 million popular votes. But he has no proof. The solution is obvious: He should fund a 50-state recount. He could pay for it with a tiny fraction of the windfall profits he may already have made by cashing in on his apparent title upgrade."

The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)
The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)

Hey! Donald!! Let’s Make a Deal on Those 3 Million “Rigged” Votes and a National Recount

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

29 November 16


onald Trump says there were 3 million fraudulent voters in a “rigged” election he lost by more than 2 million popular votes.

But he has no proof.

The solution is obvious: He should fund a 50-state recount.

He could pay for it with a tiny fraction of the windfall profits he may already have made by cashing in on his apparent title upgrade.

Trump is angry that thousands of citizens have sent $5 million in small Bernie-style donations for Jill Stein’s recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Contributions are still pouring in at

The Donald is also mad that Hillary Clinton will send lawyers (but no funding) to observe those recounts. Many are still urging her to do more via

But the burden is on Trump.

Of course he’s uncomfortable about losing the popular vote by such a large (and growing) margin. And this, of course, does not account for the thousands of black/Hispanic/Asian-American/Muslim and other citizens who were stripped from the voter rolls even though they were legally eligible.

So, Donald, here’s a win-win-win:

You’ve already made millions on the presumption that you will soon be president.

Mission accomplished.

But you’ve apparently lost the popular vote by a huge margin.

And the city of New York is now paying millions to protect you and your family at Trump Tower. You clearly don’t want the downgrade to public housing in DC.

So here’s an artful deal:

Take a tiny fraction of those profits to fund the national recount.

If those fraudulent “rigged” votes don’t really exist, and you really did lose the popular majority, just call it a day.

Take your short-term profits, concede the presidency to the popular choice, and stay a private citizen at Trump Tower, saving New York taxpayers millions in security costs.

That’s a win for Trump Inc., a win for popular democracy, and a win for New York taxpayers.

How about it, Donald. Do we have a deal?

Harvey Wasserman co-wrote THE STRIP & FLIP SELECTION OF 2016 (with Bob Fitrakis), soon to become THE STRIP & FLIP DISASTER OF AMERICA’S STOLEN ELECTIONS: FIVE JIM CROWS & ELECTRONIC ELECTION THEFT at and, where SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH currently abides. He is Secretary of Energy in Jill Stein’s shadow cabinet.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+22 # PeacefulGarden 2016-11-29 15:55
Well, how long will it take the US press to figure out that there is no way to audit the election system?

And then, how long will it take them to figure out that, heck, the election system should be ready and prepared for an audit at all times?

You all know the answer. Never. And the duopoly loves the election system that cannot be audited. And they love their press, which is dumb as a door nail.

Wait, it is their press. Oh?
+61 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-29 16:42
If Trump were to "concede the Presidency to the popular choice" (which is a good idea) I think that it is only fair that the Democratic Party primaries be exhaustively examined to determine if the actual popular choice is in reality Bernie Sanders!
-36 # DongiC 2016-11-29 18:24
Glg, Do you ever stop? For Christ's sake get a different meme.
+38 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-29 18:53
I will never stop as long as our elections are corrupted!
+57 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-29 19:23
The Wisconsin board of elections has stated that they will only allow an electronic recount to take place…


They clearly know that an examination of the paper trail would yield a different outcome.

Jill Stein and all those working on the recount must INSIST on counting the paper ballots!
If the members of that board of elections were involved in covering up election theft then I hope that they are all personally sued by the voters of that State and go to prison as well.
+10 # HowardMH 2016-11-30 11:10
The Headline that will appear on 20 Dec 2016:

The Electoral College just voted Hillary Clinton to be the 45th President of the US. Trump is suing everyone.
-3 # ericlipps 2016-12-02 20:53
You will never stop until three days after you're dead, which doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

You only think our elections are corrupted because Bernie Sanders didn't win the Democratic nomination and then sail to a landslide win over Trump.
+1 # grandlakeguy 2016-12-02 23:01
Oh really....and George W Bush won the state of Ohio in 2004?
-10 # babaregi 2016-11-30 10:39
Quoting DongiC:
Glg, Do you ever stop? For Christ's sake get a different meme.

Nope, SJWs may never learn because they've got an emotional need to push their agenda on everyone else. They have some valid points but that's secondary to the drive at their core. It's just another form of cultism and conservatives do it too.

The last laugh (for now) LOL:

"Read 'em and weep"
+11 # Dust 2016-11-30 12:50
How is that 'draining the swamp' feeling these days, with nothing but power brokers (CEO of Stanley-Morgan) and lobbyists being appointed to Trump's cabinet?

It's okay to admit you were totally hoodwinked.
+11 # Radscal 2016-11-30 16:09
Donald Trump just nominated Steven Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs banker-turned-H ollywood movie financier, as US Treasury secretary.

Will Trump supporters face the fact that their candidate is appointing the very same group of people that HRC would have picked? This guy was named as the individual responsible for the most home foreclosures.

Will the USians finally realize that national politics is theater?

I heard a good term to use to replace "politician."

-6 # babaregi 2016-11-30 18:56
Quoting Dust:
How is that 'draining the swamp' feeling these days, with nothing but power brokers (CEO of Stanley-Morgan) and lobbyists being appointed to Trump's cabinet?

It's okay to admit you were totally hoodwinked.

I was willing to take a chance at least. Both choices were bad.

The point is that your predictions were WRONG and didn't take him seriously because of your arrogance.

This is the socialist/commu nist channel (progressives) so such conceit is to be expected.

You die-hards will never learn until you get your beloved socialism/commu nism and have to learn first-hand why it sucks.

For a few hints as to why, watch these links (take a deep bong-hit first, pilgrim, to ameliorate the shock to your programming):
+5 # Dust 2016-11-30 19:44
If you can find anywhere in which I made a prediction, you are welcome to do so - please link to it.

Your point that, in general, people underestimated the amount of misogyny and racism in the USA is well made. The idea that political power structures are concerned primarily with their own interests and not the general populace would also be totally valid.

As for conceit and arrogance... well... you must have a mirror somewhere, no?
-3 # babaregi 2016-11-30 22:16
Quoting Dust:
If you can find anywhere in which I made a prediction, you are welcome to do so - please link to it.

Your point that, in general, people underestimated the amount of misogyny and racism in the USA is well made. The idea that political power structures are concerned primarily with their own interests and not the general populace would also be totally valid.

As for conceit and arrogance... well... you must have a mirror somewhere, no?

Oh come on! I was referring to my original link to many leftists dismissing Trump to begin with and not you in particular. You know that, don't be coy.

You (in particular) didn't view my evidence about socialism, did you? You didn't even comment on it so that's the impression I get.
This site is full of guys like you so pardon me. LOL

No, my comment on your conceit (in your particular case) and with SJW's in general seems appropriate.

You dismiss evidence contrary to your talking points yet want to be taken seriously when you push your narrative and policies (speaking generally, of course).

YOU blame racism for Trumps victory instead of acknowledging that loads of the voters were rebelling against the establishment (Clinton). You still don't get it.

Even Michael Moore got it, (while you don't):

FEW of you appear to be interested in reason and logic, just in posturing with your SJW dogma.
+5 # Dust 2016-11-30 23:36
No, no - if you present a valid point, I'd be interested in hearing it; I just don't think you even know what it is you're trying to say. You just like to scream about being superior.

I agreed that the usual political power structures do not, usually, represent the populace. Absolutely. And Trump said all the right things to make people who feel that disenfranchisem ent deeply cast their vote for him. I happen to think that their feelings are completely valid and their vote utterly stupid, because Trump lies. he has no comprehension of government, and you do not run a country like a(n) (often bankrupt) business. He will wreak more harm on them while yelling wildly that it is all Obama's fault.

In addition to the above primary driver, I do indeed blame racism and misogyny for part of Trump's victory, along with a lot of voter suppression and gerrymandering.

What I see from you is taunting and posturing as superior while simultaneously condemning that very behavior. the fact that you bruit about terms like SJW means that you yourself are pretty far distanced from any sort of nuanced, thoughtful dialogue.

So what are my talking points? In your own words, please.

Now I hope Trump proves me completely wrong and turns out to be a great President. I hope so. I deeply doubt it, but maybe I'm wrong. I would preferred Sanders over both of them.
-5 # babaregi 2016-12-01 00:41
So YOU are going to be the judge if my points are valid?

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one!

I still don't get the impression that you are listening, to me or examining the links that I provide.

I got that you like Bernie. I voted for him myself but I have criticisms of socialism as well. I gave you some links to this (that you probably dismissed).

I think SJW is a very accurate term for the vast majority of the fans of this site. I don't expect nuanced dialogue from fanatics and I come here to attack the groupthink in this leftist echo chamber. Taunting is the only option that makes an impact on you guys.

You can annoy me (and do) but it doesn't convince me to trust your politics when you don't want to confront serious criticism of your viewpoints.

I believe that you come here to commiserate with like-minded people and (as a group) cheer each other on in your worldview.

That's OK to a degree but it becomes a hardened position that resists correction.

I think you guys are dangerous because of the reach of your influence. It has infested academia and has captured the hearts of many vocal and assertive people that make reasoned discourse impossible.

I come here and listen even if it annoys me because I am willing to examine new information even if it is presented in a partisan/highly biased way. Most people aren't serious enough to do that and prefer to recite the familiar dogma of their tribe which is comfortable.
+3 # Dust 2016-12-01 13:06
Well, I'd say you are placing yourself on a pedestal of Reason, identifying yourself as a unique individual who suffers not from the diseases of the masses, while at the same time conveniently creating a demon you can criticize and defining every other person here as a member of that Legion.

That's neither honest nor correct.

If you have criticisms of anything (ideology, political conduct, whatever), posting YouTube videos isn't an effective method of presenting them. If you really wanted a discussion about your views and your perceived failings of whatever group, it is much more productive to say "Well, it seems to me that Trump was able to speak directly to the experience of many Americans, whereas Hillary is just disconnected, yadah yadah yadah" (simplistic example, but you get the idea).

But posting "You guys are STOOOPID! You're nothing but ignorant, self-absorbed SJWs who do nothing more than reinforce your own views. You NEVER consider alternative ideas or even the TRUTH! See? YouTube Link" and then expecting reasoned discourse is sufficiently inane that it doesn't appear to me that you truly want discussion, just the ability to scream and yell and taunt and posture.
-1 # babaregi 2016-12-01 19:26

LOL, Well, I'm sure that all makes perfect sense to you so I'll give you points for venting your spleen! Feel better now?

I'm not unique at all (except relatively rare among THIS venue).
My criticism of you guys is shared by lots of thoughtful and reasonable folks. I just happen to be one that posts here and likes to get in your face to remind you that there are people out there that don't buy your program for very good reasons.

You should get out more and check it out for yourself; don't take my word for it. Most of the sane people I'm referring to probably consider it a waste of time to post here in such an inhospitable group of ideologues that see no value in expanding their horizons by challenging their 'sacred cows'.

I may be 'unique' in that sense but it doesn't mean that I'm especially smart to have my take on your program. It's just common sense and any normal person that takes a little time to consider the matter would see it easily. I really mean that; on YouTube alone. there is plenty of commentary about the SJW mindset and its particular brand of craziness.

I could criticize any other ideology (just as easily) but yours is the dominant strain of craziness in the USA that needs to be challenged. It's enjoyed free rein for far too long (3rd wave feminism, cultural marxism, etc.)
+3 # Dust 2016-12-01 19:50
"you guys", "your program", ""SJW"

I rest my case.

You're a complete troglodyte without the honesty OR the cognitive capacity to actually express any coherent thought. Waving catch phrases without ever actually saying "I don't agree with the idea that A,B,C..." means you're a troll. Now, you may be a very good one (I think), you may be simply stupid (I doubt it), or you are simply completely dishonest (likely).

Regardless, until you can actually express a coherent, cogent idea in your own words, stay in the kid room.
-4 # babaregi 2016-12-01 20:12
Perhaps you had better rest your case after all (or at least rest); I don't think the strain of discussing the reality of your attachment to your ideology is good for you. You're regressing to the typical progressive fallback position of name-calling and insult when you get 'triggered'.

Kids room! LOL, Is that what you use for a 'safe space' these days?

Ta Ta for now.
+1 # Dust 2016-12-01 20:38

You still have yet to actually make a statement. You can't actually state what it is you are criticizing, can you? You can't say anything other than "your program" or "you guys" or "your ideology", can you? You can't actually DEFINE what you mean by those phrases, can you? You just like pissing on the fire hydrant, but of course, if someone calls you on it, you take refuge in the common dismissal of "Oh, now you're just name calling."

Post something of substance. I've yet to see you do that. You've never once made a statement regarding my "attachment to [my] ideology" and you've never defined my ideology.

As I said - you may be stupid. You certainly aren't able to present a cogent statement, whether due to troll-hood or dishonesty, well, that remains unknown.

But for sure - so far, until you can actually say something, you're a completely useless asshole.
-3 # babaregi 2016-12-02 11:07
Better find that mirror, pilgrim!

I'm not going to play your game of 'Gotcha' by making a 'statement' that you can twist and use as ammunition.

I've done that in the past with guys like you that say that you want to have a sincere discussion. It doesn't work with you fanatics because you (speaking of the group) trot out your accusations of 'misogynist', 'racist', 'xenophobe', 'Hitler' or what have you to shut down the conversation and claim victory. It happens every time so I'm not going for the bait!

I make my statements and present links to back them up (it's called evidence). The fact that you don't want to examine the evidence merely proves that you are the one that is dishonest about having a fruitful conversation that might change your mind.
...not that evidence (no matter how valid) would move your position one iota!

It amazes me how much difficulty you high I.Q., educated SJWs suddenly have properly understanding facts, evidence and reasoned arguments that run counter to your political thinking. You can lead a horse to water...

That's cool, bro. Call me a troll all you want if it soothes your troubled mind. I'm having fun and I thank you for 'sharing'.

You want a statement? OK, just for you, Mon'amie...

Words I endeavor to live by:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Mathew 7:6

+1 # ericlipps 2016-12-02 20:58
Baba, don't come off all holier than thou ; there's too much of that here already.

And really: "Taunting is the only option that makes an impact on you guys"? What kind of impact were you hoping for? All you're doing is causing people to dig in their heels.
0 # Patriot 2016-12-09 20:04
Ye gods, the pot's giving advice to the ketttle!
-2 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-01 17:24
Their 'press' is nothing more than a bunch of stenographers, not real journalists. Dontcha' know?
+21 # Ken Halt 2016-11-29 17:03
There is a very good article in The Hill, "The Democratic Party failed by ignoring Bernie delegates", that explains the '16 primary and general election in precisely the way I experienced it myself. Sorry I don't have a link to it but if you go to The Hill and search for the title, you will find it. I'm really tired of HRC supporters coming on the RSN thread and blaming us for her defeat, insulting us with labels such as misogynist and haters. Progressives opposed HRC for good reason, and paid attention to credible polls that showed Bernie to be the stronger candidate and HRC a probable loser to DT. We had (c)rocback, lights, rain, babaregi, Barbra K, and others throwing around a lot of hateful words about our assessments, but it all comes down to the DP fielding an indifferent candidate in a change election. The dispassion resulted in low turnout for a flawed candidate while DT's supporters felt motivated. I recommend the above article as a good analysis of the '16 cycle.
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-29 17:21
haha What a rogues gallery, eh? rocback -- that scum! Why hasn't he come back to say hello :-D

Everything you're saying makes beautiful sense, KH, but the HRC supporters are in total denial -- which does not portend good things for 2018 ....

Thanks for the recommendation.
+15 # Ken Halt 2016-11-29 18:01
Difficult to describe how much more pleasant the RSN threads are now that we don't have to wade through muck and be insulted by the Hillbot trolls! I've enjoyed and been attracted to RSN as a place of reasoned debate and enlightening discourse but during the primaries it became very unpleasant because of the aforementioned temporary additions. So glad they're gone and we can have civil interchange again!
+15 # Caliban 2016-11-30 02:09
HRC is gone from the scene, and I don't expect her running for the presidency again. That said, I do not think there is any excuse for continuing to trash her on RSN.

If trashing folks is your thing, please do it to Trump, Pence, and this dreadful cabinet Trump is putting together. And above all, perhaps, please get locally involved for 2018. There are GOP majorities in both Houses of Congress that need to be trimmed to a manageable size.

And State and local legislative elections can have powerful effects for good and ill in our own neighborhoods, so let's not ignore them as we gear up for 2020.

Sadly, Bernie may feel as he approaches age 79 in 2020 that he may be too old to run again. But, clearly, he needs to continue to give Democrats his best advice and to continue to push hard for progressive causes in the terrible political environment in DC.

As for Hillary, she would have been miles better than Trump is going to be, so please, enough with the insults. As progressives, we really have more important things to do.
+11 # ljslotnick 2016-11-30 03:53
I don't feel that referring to HRC as "indifferent" is akin to trashing her. It's simply a straightforward opinion that has not been denied by any of her followers in the media. GLG's posts and displeasure are directed mostly at the DNC and DP...deservedly so. The Clinton's are a cancer within the DP and we all want to make sure they indeed "go away." The only asset they bring is their fundraising prowess. But Bernie has demonstrated that you do not have to sell your political soul in order to run a successful people-powered campaign.
So, I have to emphasize that, as long as an army of PR firms and media personalities are on the payroll of the Clintons, we need to vigilantly insist that the DP and DNC move in a completely new direction.
+4 # Caliban 2016-11-30 10:30
Hi, # ljslotnick -- I should have been more precise.

I agree that describing HRC as an "indifferent" candidate is not "trashing". It is actually a pretty accurate term. But I was referring to the more general tendency for many RSN commenters in recent months to take a more broadly based and very negative view of her character and work.

I'm not even saying that negativity was not deserved. Much of it was. But HRC is now the past, and we have plenty to critique in the here and now with Trump soon to take office. That here and now (not the negatives of HRC's bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination) is where our attention should be directed.

However, it appears that for some I was merely stating the obvious, and for that I apologize.
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-30 19:20
It is because of her character and her work that we take a very broadly negative view of her. She may not be a candidate again, but her influence is not dead. We have to kill it, if that means trashing her, so be it. She brought it on herself. Instead of acknowledging her shortcomings she blames her loss on everybody else. On the Russians, on Comey, on Obama for not interfering in Comey's investigation, on Bernie for not being "enthusiastic" enough. It was not just that she was a lousy campaigner. People just didn't want what she was selling regardless of how it was dressed up.
+10 # librarian1984 2016-11-30 09:41
Oh we'll get around to trashing Trump. For instance, it is not good that he is appointing so many generals, and the third Goldman Sachs executive in ten years as Treasury Secretary but ....

The election isn't even a month old. We can still bash Hillary for a bit. She screwed us all over pretty well.

But more importantly, her supporters are still on rsn and in the press talking about how she lost because of Bernie and sexism and election fraud and ....

Meanwhile the DP has retained Schumer and Pelosi in leadership roles and it's obvious they did not LEARN anything from this election. They are going to continue their disastrous attachment to neoliberal policies.

SO, I am not particularly interested in bashing Hillary, though it is a bit cathartic, but ....

0 # ericlipps 2016-12-02 21:02
I see. You can go on bashing Hillary because "her supporters at still on RSN." Not vey many, but I guess the trashing will go on until the purge is complete. Then, 1984-style,you can have this site scrubbed until there's no evidence that any Clinton supporters ever posted here.
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-11-30 11:41
Cal: Typical misdirection. Where in anything I said or have said on the RSN threads did I ever trash HRC? Didn't happen! I don't hate her or dislike her, just happen to think she was a poor candidate for high office. I can state my reasons again if you'd like, had nothing to do with the many baseless Repub witch hunts. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension?
+4 # economagic 2016-11-30 08:55
Quoting Ken Halt:
There is a very good article in The Hill, "The Democratic Party failed by ignoring Bernie delegates", that explains the '16 primary and general election in precisely the way I experienced it myself. Sorry I don't have a link to it but if you go to The Hill and search for the title, you will find it.

It took a little hunting, as I am not familiar with the format of The Hill (NOT a political junkie), and its search function is not obvious.

The article was written by three Democratic women who served as delegates for Sanders at the DNC. They are saying exactly what Sanders' supporters on RSN have been saying since late 2015, and continue to say.

A quick scan of The Hill's main page shows how much power the old guard in the Democratic party still holds within the party, even as it holds virtually none in the larger political sphere, effectively acting as the spoiler as some here have noted.
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-11-30 11:49
econo: Thank you for the research and the link. And yes, "They are saying exactly what Sanders supporters on RSN have been saying...", that's why I thought it would be of interest on this thread. We did see it coming and broadcast it to whoever might listen but did they listen? No, and to top it off called us all sorts of scurrilous names! And as librarian says, they are still calling us names! I second librarian's last line in the above post "THERE IS NO MOVING ON UNTIL THE LESSONS ARE LEARNED."
+5 # Philothustra 2016-11-30 10:35
Look, let's "move on" from Hillary, who was never selected or elected legitimately, but was merely told "It your turn next" by Obama. That's no secret..

And aside from daydreaming uselessly about Trump's absurd claim, consider this: throughout the land and across all massmedia fronts, the Trumpkins are already repeating that "3 million illegals voted," as if an illegal would risk exposure and deportation by showing up at the polls and voting for Hillary! We are post-truth

The "3 million" number was chosen because its larger than the "2 million" popular vote loss. Even T.Rump can figure out that "3>2"
-1 # lfeuille 2016-11-30 19:26
We can't move on from Hillary until the Democratic Party exorcises the ghost of her influence on the party's policy and method of operation. That does not we won't counter Trump's bullshit, but it is so absurd that it sort of counters itself. In the meaning Clintonism has imbedded itself in the Dem Party and has to be erased.
+11 # Blackjack 2016-11-30 01:04
Amen, Ken. Guess they're not feeling quite so smug now, huh? In this sorry red state, whose Dem "leadership" loves HRC, there has been total silence. But there was an op ed piece in the State newspaper by one of the Dems who ran for (and lost) one of the seven congressional seats (Dems control only one). He said that the state and national Dem leadership should all be fired for lack of real effort to elect real Dems. I followed up with a letter to the editor stating why I agreed with him.
+9 # librarian1984 2016-11-30 10:13
Yes, this is a good time to be vocal because the leadership wants to go back to business as usual.

I saw Howard Dean on Morning Joe this morning. This was a (paraphrased) exchange between Dean and Mika:

HD: Millennials aren't interested in politics.

MB: Not interested in politics? They loved Bernie Sanders.

HD: But look at the turnout. They don't show up.

MB: That's because it was Hillary. They rigged it and Bernie never got a chance.

HD: I wouldn't quite go THAT far.

MB: No, that's what happened. Read the emails. Stabbed in the back.

We cannot let Dean become DNC chair.


Also, Sen. Sanders was on Conan last night and, of course, he was asked if he thought he could have beaten Trump. He said, roughly, "Who knows? Polling showed .. I was beating him by pretty large margins, much more so than Secretary Clinton. You know, but then you go through a three month campaign .. All I can tell you .. I wish to god that I had that opportunity. I would have loved to have run against him."

Maybe you'll have that chance, Bernie. Take your vitamins.
-1 # ericlipps 2016-12-02 21:07
I can see it now. By great fortitude, healthy eating, lots of exercise and gobbling medications like Tic-Tacs, Bernie is still alive and seemingly healthy in 2020, and runs again. He wins . . . and drops dead after the electors have voted but before his inauguration, triggering a constitutional meltdown.
-39 # egbegb 2016-11-30 01:38
Trump doesn't have to prove it. CA and a number of other states give drivers licenses to illegals. Democrats are well known to encourage illegals to vote and now they have a picture ID. The entire state government in CA is controlled by Democrats. Everyone knows that a lot of illegals voted. Do Democrats deny that?

Trump doesn't have to do anything because Jill Klein's efforts will only line her pockets -- they won't be successful. She will retire as CEO of a 401c charity dedicated to better voting practices, paying herself a goodly salary for managing the charity.
+9 # opinionaire 2016-11-30 09:03
Yes, he does. The tweets he delivers as his own visceral (read gaseously inspired) versions of reality have necessitated his providing proof--which he obviously cannot do.
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-11-30 11:52
eg: It's okay to be ignorant but why parade it in front of a large audience that is better informed and more knowledgable than you?
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-30 14:36
He doesn't have to prove it?

Well hey, don't forget you owe me a thousand dollars!

+8 # Femihumanist 2016-11-30 15:12
[quote name="egbegb"] Everyone knows that a lot of illegals voted. Do Democrats deny that?

Right!! Everyone who is here illegally likes nothing better than to call attention to themselves.
-2 # Radscal 2016-11-30 16:29
According to the HRC SuperPac officials who were videotaped by Veritas, the way "voter fraud" is done is that the SuperPacs pay people to pretend to be others. So, it's not necessarily the undocumented immigrants actually doing the voting.

These individuals then go to multiple polling stations and vote under a different name at each one. The operatives used to literally bus them from one polling place to the next, but once election officials caught on, they took to buying autos at auctions so the fraudulent voters would arrive just a few at a time.

They've also figured out how to get phony voter IDs in some of the states that require them (which CA is not, making egbegb's example irrelevant.

It blew my mind to see these HRC SuperPac honchos bragging about this, since I didn't believe "voter fraud" was a real thing (like essentially everyone who didn't buy the Republican claims).
-2 # librarian1984 2016-11-30 18:04
Me too. I thought this was a non-problem.

Maybe we should do the orange thumb or something. That would get some conversations going too.
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-30 19:34
I'm not sure that wasn't a setup. It sounds a lot like what happened to ACORN. I'm not defending Hillary, but I don't think there would have been stupid enough to knowingly hire these guys. And who the hell would brag about committing a crime on video unless they wanted to get caught.
-1 # Radscal 2016-12-01 14:54
The Veritas team has certainly used manipulative means and editing to misrepresent others, but I've watched these election videos and read about them, and can't see how they could have "setup" these people to say and do the things they're recorded saying and doing.

And if it was all just BS, why were the two directors fired after the videos came out?

It's just like the DNC, which denied rigging the primaries until the Wikileaks emails came out. Then they "accepted the resignations" of 4 high-ranking officials, including the Chair of the DNC. Then, the replacement Chair was fired by CNN for rigging the Primary debates.

The truth came out, but they never really acknowledged it.

Large scale "voter fraud" directed by Party operatives seems to follow the exact same playbook.

Go watch the 4 videos Veritas released on this election, and see if you still deny these criminals' own words and deeds.
+3 # Radscal 2016-11-30 16:45
Bruce Schneir did a fine, concise description of the vulnerabilities preventing election validity and the solutions.

It boils down to:
1. Ensuring voting rolls are accurate and adhered to.
2. Ensuring that votes are recorded accurately.
3. Ensuring that votes are tabulated accurately.
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-30 19:30
The drivers licenses where marked so that they could not be used as id for voting. They were only valid for driving. This is just another right wing smoke screen.
-2 # ericlipps 2016-12-02 21:08
You don't help your credibility by getting Jill Stein's name wrong, especially when it pops up in about every other post here.
+9 # Blackjack 2016-11-30 07:52
Oops, looks like we called it wrong, Ken. One of them is alive and kicking! And he is obviously so well informed. . .Jill Klein???
+15 # Texas Aggie 2016-11-30 08:21
Remember how Drumpf had thousands of poll watchers all around the nation? Since Drumpf won the popular vote by a landslide (If you don't believe me, ask him), that means that there had to be at least 3 million illegal voters if not more, and every one of them snuck through the wall of watchers that Drumpf had set up. Not a single one of them was caught according to reports that show zero people being charged with voting while Hispanic. If that is a measure of how good his people are at doing their job, the US is in real bad trouble.
0 # Buddha 2016-11-30 10:17
There is no point in a recount, I am 100% sure that even Red states are accurately counting votes. The rigging is in how the GOP come up with what votes to actually count and which to invalidate. "Crosscheck", the GOP's massive race-based-name -check scheme did as it was written to do, throw out millions of minority votes this year across the country, on top of voter ID poll taxing, under-boothing minority districts, you know...the usual. Only an in-depth non-partisan investigation of the entire election rigging scam by the Republicans will demonstrate how this election was stolen, and by then it is a fait accompli. The Left is being idiotic by distracting from the true way this election was stolen by demanding a "recount" when mis-counting wasn't how it was done.
+5 # Radscal 2016-11-30 16:36
As Greg Palast has been showing us for over a decade, the two main ways that elections are stolen are "Strip" and "Flip."

Crosscheck is one of the "Strip" methods. Hacking computer voting machines, electronic paper-ballot tabulating machines and State election computer databases are methods of "Flipping."

Since there is no paper trail for many of votes cast, you're correct that a recount will not uncover all the election fraud, but if it proves even some, then it could motivate voters to demand a return to hand-counted paper ballots and independent voter roll verifications.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-30 14:40
If the recount leads to a deeper, broader investigation that would be wonderful; otherwise it's a waste of time and money that just makes the Left look like sore losers.

The big numbers are lost in gerrymandering, purges, long lines, provisional ballots, black boxes, etc. What are we doing about that?
+4 # DongiC 2016-12-01 22:05
The Left is not a sore loser when it calls for electoral honesty. It is long overdue and librarian 1984 has a good list to start with. We are being kind of simple minded when we don't call the Right on what is their basic deceit and corruption of our very way of life. (It would be nice if Democratic leaders like Schumer and Pelosi led the charge against the mean spirited GOP. But, they are not doing it.) So other progressives must step forward. Otherwise, the Conservatives will mess up as they always to and we will have a depression or major war or both.
+1 # DongiC 2016-12-01 22:07
last line "always do"
+1 # librarian1984 2016-12-02 01:29
Do you see the little pad and pencil on the bottom left of your post? If you click that you can edit your post and then click 'Send'. The corrections will be incorporated into the original text -- so no need to post a separate comment.
+2 # 2016-12-02 16:19
This seems to be trumps MO. If he is accusing someone else,(such as Hilary), he is most likely dong t himself. This is his way of distracting the public from his miss-doings. He should be investigated before he sends this country back 50 years

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.