Thursday, December 8, 2016


I see the Federal Judge who ordered the recount in Michigan has reversed his decision and ordered the process stopped after a State Court found that Jill Stein, the Green Candidate, had no legal standing to request a recount.   

The Court found that Stein who finished fourth in the race could not possibly win even after the recount and therefore could not be seen as an 'aggrieved party'. 

Hurrah for common sense.   Stein was a loser who sought to profit from gullible losers who contributed $7.2m to a lost cause.

Meanwhile the recount continues in Wisconsin where, horror, shock, horror (to the Democrats) Trump has increased his margin of victory over Clinton.

The final scene in the election process will stage on Saturday when an election will be held in Louisiana to pick a replacement for retiring GOP Senator David Vitter. Louisiana is a 'Red' State'.

The latest opinion polls have the Republican candidate 'John Kennedy' (I kid you not) 14 points ahead of his Democrat rival.   If the Republicans win it will grow their Senate lead over the other mob to 52-46-2 (although the two 'Independents' so called caucus with the Democrats).    


Anonymous said...

Bit one sided there Veteran. What you are not hearing is that there is also a recount happening in Nevada, I remind you that Clinton won Nevada. The history of US is one where federal courts step in to protect the constitutional voting rights of all Americans, especially when they are under attack in the states. Well today, they are under brutal attack. Backed by Michigan Republicans, Donald Trump -- who himself has repeatedly alleged widespread voter fraud and a 'rigged election' -- suddenly sees no need for a routine verification of the democratic process in Michigan. His efforts to suppress the vote count is a stunning about-face, even by Trump's own standards.

It was a Michigan State judge that ordered the recount, the same judge has now stopped it but a Federal court will now decide. It must be done, not to change the result but to satisfy Americans of the integrity of their voting system....worrying example have already been found in Michigan including uncounted ballots.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

For State read Federal....the final chapter.

It might be interesting to keep an eye on this judge...he is destined for great things.

Lord Egbut

Angry Tory said...

Americans do not have any "constitutional voting rights". Read the Constitution: there is no general right to vote.

A Republic, not a democracy.

Anonymous said...


Psycho Milt said...

Americans do not have any "constitutional voting rights". Read the Constitution: there is no general right to vote.

It would be wonderful to see the Republicans argue that one before the Supreme Court - have you suggested it to them?

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... very unlike you to misinterpret my post. I was not arguing against recounts per se. If Clinton, the only person who could have benefited from the recount, had requested one then I would have acknowledged her right to do so ... she didn't, that speaks volumes. Stein had no standing in the matter. She abused process to rake in cash for her Party and was rightly called out by the Courts.

The same applies to Nevada won by Clinton with 48% of the vote. The recount was requested by an independent candidate, Rocky De La Fuente, who came last scoring just 2,552 votes. Again, I would argue this was an abuse of process by a loser with no standing to request a recount. The only saving grace here is that 'Rocky' has put up his own money to finance the recount ... clearly more money than sense.

As for Trump trumpeting wide spread fraud and that's Trump being Trump. Like Stein he produces no evidence to back his claim ... and he wonders why some of us wonder about him.

For Angry Tory and clearly in your case a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ... yes, the Constitution as originally written did not confer voting rights. However the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments require that voting rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex or age above 18. That along with he Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 24th amendment to the Constitution and Reynolds vs Sims (US Supreme Court 377 US 533) provide for the universal franchise and the 'one man, one vote' principle. Your point????????

For Egbut (again) ... see that the UK Parliament has backed the Tory plan setting out the timetable for triggering of Article 50 leading to Brexit by a margin of 461 to 89. This coupled with the advice of Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, they they will not overturn the result of the referendum and it appears to be all over bar the shouting ... with a lot of shouting to come.

Angry Tory said...

Vet - there is no Constitutional right to vote, just as there is no constitutional right to abortion, for example.
Were there such a right, for example, citizens resident in DC would presumably elected a representative. They only get a non-voting delegate. Property qualifications, for example, are still Constitutional (even if illegal under the Voting RIghts Act) but the kind of Court we'll have in a couple of years could easily rule that the federal government doesn't have the authority to prevent states from imposing such qualifications.

Angry Tory said...

As for Trump trumpeting wide spread fraud and that's Trump being Trump.

Remember that non-citizens can vote in NZ. Restricting voting to Citizens only would be a vote winner for ACT or NZF (or a Whale party)

The Veteran said...

Angry Tory ... you and I are not on the same page. DC has 3 electoral college votes. It was won by Clinton who took 91% of the vote. It is a City not a State. It has an elected Mayor and 13 Councillors. It is 90% 'black' and 90% Democrat.

Are you are suggesting that the notion of no taxation without representation we consigned to the dustbin of history or are you suggesting that people granted residency in New Zealand should be exempt from paying tax. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Not on the same page?

Not on the same bookshelf, more likely. Maybe not even in the same library.

Honey Badger said...

For Christ's sake people! Tune into Sanity FM. Angry Tory is a commie piss take. In previous incarnations he's used the name Andrew Berwick - the pseudonym used for the 11000 word rant by Anders Behring Breivik (remember him?)

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr Badger. Not Commie but fascist. One of Putins troll army.Your warnings fall on deaf ears as in one of the bloggers case the only people that agree with him are the trolls.....sad.

Veteran...slight error. The supreme court has said that it is not a part of their brief to overturn referendum results but to decide whether A50 can be done by royal prerogative or by parliamentary vote. The fun has yet to start with the Scots and Ulster MP's getting into the fray. Unless there is a plan acceptable to all it will continue to be voted down. A bye election in Lincolnshire reduced Labour to 4th place. The area voted overwhelmingly for Brexit on the basis the towns have a very high East European population. As they are the only ones willing to work the fields (potatoes and root crops) one wonders who will do the job....the locals wont. Turkeys voting for Xmas.

LOrd Egbut

Angry Tory said...

DC gets 3 votes in the electoral college, but zero senators, zero representatives, and one non-voting delegate in the house.

The US certainly has "taxation without representation" because taxation is a duty while voting is a privilege.
Only citizens can vote in the US and pretty much every other country. NZ is unique in offering permanent residents the franchise.
In the US, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, temporary visa holders, green cards etc all pay federal taxes: none of them have a federal franchise.

I'm sure either Winston or Slater would be able to exploit NZ's anomalous position for partisan advantage.

The Veteran said...

AT ... DC ain't a State ... get it ... naaah, doesn't fit your narrative.

Re NZ permanent resident's entitlment to vote. Stop changing the goalposts. We're talking about NZL not the US. Peters is crass but not stupid. Not even he is suggesting depriving permanent residents of their franchise.

If Peters wanted to manipulate the franchise for partisan advantage then he could raise the voting age to 65>.

Anonymous said...

Veteran..he is geographically challenged he wouldn't recognise Peters if you shoved his photo up his tiny Russian arse.

The Ruskies have given me an idea. Why not save time and money and outsource our elections to another country, perhaps even our Olympic training could be put out to tender.

Lord Egbut