and by the White House.

I don't know if this is true. In several of the articles linked here, it mentions that the White House wants a smooth tradition and doesn't wish for there to be a challenge.

I don't know how Hillary puts up with so many obstacles thrown in her path. I don't.

Never backs down. Spine of steel. Come on, Madam Secretary! Fight for the audit in those three swing states.

a damn thing about it except glossing it over.

If Hillary so much as raises an eyebrow "sore loser" will be on every lip. On the other hand, Sanders could challenge from the disinterested perspective of a justice seeker, since he wasn't in the race. Is anything stopping him?

I don't care if Hillary looks like a "sore loser". The integrity of our elections is more important than any one person, and Hillary understands that better than anyone else. If she didn't, she never would have run. She knew how much hate and loathing would be thrown her way.

But if we're going to ask someone to make public statements or file suits, it would be far more effective if Sanders the Independent does it first, as any Democrat will get soundly thumped as a spoilsport. Bernie on the other hand would look like the crusader for justice he's thought to be.

Bernie is more focused on attacking Hillary, claiming that she does not have guts, did not have anything going for her other than being female, and expected people to vote for her only because she's a woman.

Until we chuck the piece of shit, we'll keep getting shitty results.

This is about a fraudulent election and fraudulent results.

This is about de-legitimizing Trump - and then we'll see where the nation turns.

You have to meet that states threshold for recounts, and she doesn't.

That has no bearing on state laws regarding recounts.

Recounting "the votes" won't change a thing.

It's about the votes that weren't counted. The voters who didn't vote. The votes that weren't generated by the voters.

There is nothing even remotely approaching proof that voting was hacked. None. There are allegations, contentions that are based on smoke and mirrors. Do you really think that Obama or Clinton are happy to have Trump who called Obama a foreigner and Clinton a criminal going into office? If there was anything to this, they would have something to say.

It's easy to say that you think Sanders would fight this. But I remember a bunch of Sanders supporters saying he should fight the primary results because they couldn't imagine that he was getting outvoted. Sanders didn't do that, because it wasn't hacked or some other vote tampering. It's the same in the general election. We got outvoted in some states. The lesson isn't to scream it's not fair. The lesson is to prepare for the upcoming political fights and the 2018 midterm and 2020 elections.

Some computer expert says "Oh noes, Hillary got 7% fewer votes in electronic voting counties than in paper ballot counties!!!" So what? What are the demographics of the counties? What was the turnout for each party in those counties? How many new voters? Etc., etc., etc.

It smacks of desperation, IMO.

It happens like clockwork, a democrat loses there's always people saying it's rigged. The 'proof' is always too conspiratorial for me. The sort of conspiracy theory logic where the conclusion is assumed know and then you look for facts to support the conclusion. Since the election I've been on DailyKos and TPM, this is the first I'm hearing of this being rigged.

All this talk does absolutely no good...

No, I wouldn't have pulled a Trump and refused to at all, though I would want to with that unqualified moron Trump. But it wouldn't hurt to audit the close states that infuriatingly were able to override a significant popular vote win.

Plus, it isn't like we never heard of hacking during the campaign. Something feels off, and I wish we had proof.