|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 13 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So wikileaks now publishes indiscriminately private emails that contain no special scandal or revelation and that are given to them by a foreign power trying to temper with the election.
I mean, in what universe is that ok?
In the universe in which crowd sourcing is easier than doing any of the work yourself, apparently
|
Guys, I think crowd sourcing might be a flawed way to do anything of value. 2016 has cemented this view for me.
|
On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best.
- Wikileaks
- DNC Chairwomen comments
- Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter)
- Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats
- Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time
- Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders
- Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up.
- Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales
- Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies
- Voting places taken away
- Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear
- Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change
- Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice
The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job.
|
Putin responds to the hacking accusation
The scandal that erupted in the United States over allegations Russia hacked Democratic Party emails has not been in Moscow's interests and both sides in the U.S. election campaign are just using Russia to score points, Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The U.S. government on Friday formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.
And the White House said on Tuesday it would consider a variety of responses to the alleged hacks.
"They started this hysteria, saying that this (hacking) is in Russia's interests. But this has nothing to do with Russia's interests," President Putin told a business forum in Moscow.
Putin said the accusations were a ploy to divert U.S. voters' attention at a time when public opinion was being manipulated.
"Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information."
The Kremlin said earlier on Wednesday it took a negative view of White House statements about a planned "proportional" response to the alleged cyber attacks.
Putin complained that all sides in the U.S. presidential race were misusing rhetoric about Russia for their own ends, but said Moscow would work with whoever won the election "if, of course, the new U.S. leader wishes to work with our country".
"About a decade ago, they wouldn't mention Russia at all, because it was not even worth talking about, such a third-rate regional power and not interesting at all. Now Russia is problem number one in the entire election campaign," said Putin.
"All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-putin-idUSKCN12C1H6
|
On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght.
Now read your list again and tell me how many of those constitute fraud. Also, citation needed.
|
On October 13 2016 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Croocked Hillary is cooked !!
Damn corrupt Democrats. What's next, how to make juicy oven roasted chicken?
|
crowdsourcing is useful for some things; just not for others. As long as you only use it judiciously, and account for its limitations, it's a fin tool.
|
On October 13 2016 01:18 Dan HH wrote:Putin responds to the hacking accusation Show nested quote +The scandal that erupted in the United States over allegations Russia hacked Democratic Party emails has not been in Moscow's interests and both sides in the U.S. election campaign are just using Russia to score points, Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The U.S. government on Friday formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.
And the White House said on Tuesday it would consider a variety of responses to the alleged hacks.
"They started this hysteria, saying that this (hacking) is in Russia's interests. But this has nothing to do with Russia's interests," President Putin told a business forum in Moscow.
Putin said the accusations were a ploy to divert U.S. voters' attention at a time when public opinion was being manipulated.
"Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information."
The Kremlin said earlier on Wednesday it took a negative view of White House statements about a planned "proportional" response to the alleged cyber attacks.
Putin complained that all sides in the U.S. presidential race were misusing rhetoric about Russia for their own ends, but said Moscow would work with whoever won the election "if, of course, the new U.S. leader wishes to work with our country".
"About a decade ago, they wouldn't mention Russia at all, because it was not even worth talking about, such a third-rate regional power and not interesting at all. Now Russia is problem number one in the entire election campaign," said Putin.
"All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-putin-idUSKCN12C1H6
"Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information."
Well, I learnt a lot about risottos, and know that you mention it, Vlad, I find quite fucking important to know who did it. Actually, more so than the risotto.
|
On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job.
I pretty readily believe that on some level the DNC screwed Bernie from having a shot at the nomination, though I think he would have still lost ultimately. So like I'd be all over credible claims of 'massive' voter fraud in terms of appealing to my own biases.
But... Most of those aren't voter fraud even if they're scandalous in their own right.
The only ones that are voter fraud are only very loosely supported ("glitches in the system" & discrepancies between exit polling and vote result).
Voter Fraud is a specific type of thing, you can't just apply it to anything negative that happens to a candidate.
|
An exchange Tuesday night between CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway highlighted an inherent tension in the Trump campaign’s recent push to put Bill Clinton’s sexual history at the forefront of the 2016 campaign: Does settling a lawsuit imply some guilt?
Cooper pressed Conway on that question when she brought up the story of Paula Jones, who eventually settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 for $850,000. The President, as part of that settlement, offered no apology and admitted no guilt for what Jones said were unwanted sexual advancements.
“It's part of the strategy to remind people of who Hillary Rodham Clinton actually is. If others aren't going to hold her account for her full record, then, yes, we will,” Conway said of the Trump campaign’s new strategy to associate Hillary Clinton with her husband’s behavior as governor of Arkansas and as President.
“He settled a sexual harassment case for $850,000 with Paula Jones in 1998 dollars. The last time I didn't sexually harass someone, I didn't pay him $850,000,” she said.
“Your candidate has settled numerous lawsuits without admitting any guilt on a whole number of things,” Cooper responded. “Are you implying that settling a lawsuit is implying guilt? Because if so, it means your candidate is guilty of an awful of lot of things, no?”
“For that, really, as governor of Arkansas, using state troopers to procure a win for you?” Conway responded, referring to a '90s mini-scandal in which state troopers claimed they arranged Bill Clinton's extramarital encounters, including with Jones.
Anderson pressed again: “You're saying settling a lawsuit is questionable and raising questions about guilt. Your client settles lawsuits all the time, even though he says he doesn't, right?”
Conway dodged the question again, so Cooper repeated it one more time.
“I’m saying that I believe Paula Jones, is what I’m saying,” she concluded, before moving on. Though he has bragged otherwise, Trump often settles lawsuits out of court, including a civil rights lawsuit from Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, which alleged Trump systematically discriminated against non-white apartment applicants.
ThinkProgress found that Trump settled 13 lawsuits between 1990 and 2014. And in June, USA Today found that Trump was or is currently involved in a startling 3,500 legal actions, “from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.”
Still, Trump is publicly critical of the tactic that he often uses. After the so-called Central Park Five, who were wrongly convicted of raping and beating a jogger in Central Park, settled a lawsuit with the city of New York in 2014, Trump said in an editorial that “Settling doesn’t mean innocence, but it indicates incompetence on several levels.”
Source
|
On October 13 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. Now read your list again and tell me how many of those constitute fraud. Also, citation needed.
Almost all of those are internet conspiracy theories that he is either overstating their impact or have no hard evidence exist in the first place. I especially like the money laundering claim, I forgot the Sanders camp cooked up that nonsense based on a single politico article that never referenced money laundering.
|
United States43813 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job.
Hi,
Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything.
Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that.
Thanks.
|
On October 13 2016 01:23 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. I pretty readily believe that on some level the DNC screwed Bernie from having a shot at the nomination, though I think he would have still lost ultimately. So like I'd be all over credible claims of 'massive' voter fraud in terms of appealing to my own biases. But... Most of those aren't voter fraud even if they're scandalous in their own right. The only ones that are voter fraud are only very loosely supported ("glitches in the system" & discrepancies between exit polling and vote result). Voter Fraud is a specific type of thing, you can't just apply it to anything negative that happens to a candidate.
The voter fraud accusations that haven't been debunked (to my knowledge) are based on precinct size, the law of large numbers, and a comparison between hand counted results and machine counted results.
None of that really matters to whether you should vote for Clinton or Trump now, though. It's not like we're going to go back and redo the primaries under any president.
|
On October 13 2016 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:18 Dan HH wrote:Putin responds to the hacking accusation The scandal that erupted in the United States over allegations Russia hacked Democratic Party emails has not been in Moscow's interests and both sides in the U.S. election campaign are just using Russia to score points, Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The U.S. government on Friday formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.
And the White House said on Tuesday it would consider a variety of responses to the alleged hacks.
"They started this hysteria, saying that this (hacking) is in Russia's interests. But this has nothing to do with Russia's interests," President Putin told a business forum in Moscow.
Putin said the accusations were a ploy to divert U.S. voters' attention at a time when public opinion was being manipulated.
"Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information."
The Kremlin said earlier on Wednesday it took a negative view of White House statements about a planned "proportional" response to the alleged cyber attacks.
Putin complained that all sides in the U.S. presidential race were misusing rhetoric about Russia for their own ends, but said Moscow would work with whoever won the election "if, of course, the new U.S. leader wishes to work with our country".
"About a decade ago, they wouldn't mention Russia at all, because it was not even worth talking about, such a third-rate regional power and not interesting at all. Now Russia is problem number one in the entire election campaign," said Putin.
"All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-putin-idUSKCN12C1H6 "Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information." Well, I learnt a lot about risottos, and know that you mention it, Vlad, I find quite fucking important to know who did it. Actually, more so than the risotto.
You like to quote that bit, and added your witty response, but I think you should focus on this bit:
"All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations."
I've seen this message consistently out of Russia for the past 3-4 years at least, it has possibly existed much longer than that. All we really get from the American politicians is "Russia bad, US good".
Doesn't that strike you as odd?
|
On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote.
This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them.
This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't.
On October 13 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. Hi, Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything. Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that. Thanks.
Maybe not election fraud, but it's still fraud. The defense that Bernie's supporters knew it was rigged isn't a very good one either.
|
On October 13 2016 01:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:23 Logo wrote:On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. I pretty readily believe that on some level the DNC screwed Bernie from having a shot at the nomination, though I think he would have still lost ultimately. So like I'd be all over credible claims of 'massive' voter fraud in terms of appealing to my own biases. But... Most of those aren't voter fraud even if they're scandalous in their own right. The only ones that are voter fraud are only very loosely supported ("glitches in the system" & discrepancies between exit polling and vote result). Voter Fraud is a specific type of thing, you can't just apply it to anything negative that happens to a candidate. The voter fraud accusations that haven't been debunked (to my knowledge) are based on precinct size, the law of large numbers, and a comparison between hand counted results and machine counted results. None of that really matters to whether you should vote for Clinton or Trump now, though. It's not like we're going to go back and redo the primaries under any president.
Yeah, I've heard of some of that, but does it really constitute 'massive' by any means even if the evidence could pan out on that stuff? Hillary won by 2 million votes+ and my understanding is that Bernie basically had very little chance in delegate math because of how poorly he did in the southern states (never mind the super delegates).
Like again I'm pretty skeptical of the primary this time around, but it still seems like in terms of the votes cast Hillary was always going to come out ahead even before you factor in any of the voter fraud that may or may not have happened. Hell the only reason it was as close as it was is because of the caucus states going heavily to Bernie because of the format.
|
On October 13 2016 01:32 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 13 2016 01:18 Dan HH wrote:Putin responds to the hacking accusation The scandal that erupted in the United States over allegations Russia hacked Democratic Party emails has not been in Moscow's interests and both sides in the U.S. election campaign are just using Russia to score points, Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The U.S. government on Friday formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.
And the White House said on Tuesday it would consider a variety of responses to the alleged hacks.
"They started this hysteria, saying that this (hacking) is in Russia's interests. But this has nothing to do with Russia's interests," President Putin told a business forum in Moscow.
Putin said the accusations were a ploy to divert U.S. voters' attention at a time when public opinion was being manipulated.
"Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information."
The Kremlin said earlier on Wednesday it took a negative view of White House statements about a planned "proportional" response to the alleged cyber attacks.
Putin complained that all sides in the U.S. presidential race were misusing rhetoric about Russia for their own ends, but said Moscow would work with whoever won the election "if, of course, the new U.S. leader wishes to work with our country".
"About a decade ago, they wouldn't mention Russia at all, because it was not even worth talking about, such a third-rate regional power and not interesting at all. Now Russia is problem number one in the entire election campaign," said Putin.
"All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-putin-idUSKCN12C1H6 "Everyone is talking about 'who did it' (the hacking)," said Putin. "But is it that important? The most important thing is what is inside this information." Well, I learnt a lot about risottos, and know that you mention it, Vlad, I find quite fucking important to know who did it. Actually, more so than the risotto. You like to quote that bit, and added your witty response, but I think you should focus on this bit: "All they do is keep talking about us. Of course it's pleasant for us, but only partly because all participants are misusing anti-Russian rhetoric and poisoning our bilateral relations." I've seen this message consistently out of Russia for the past 3-4 years at least, it has possibly existed much longer than that. All we really get from the American politicians is "Russia bad, US good". Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Well considering who is in power in Russia, what they do, and how aggressive the country is, no.
The fact that Russia is directly financing fascist parties all over Europe to destabilize the EU (and that's proven and documented) leaves very little doubt about their intentions elsewhere in the West.
Now, the attitude of Putin towards Trump and the testimony of many security expert who say that there are little doubts those hackings come from Russia should be enough to put the puzzle back together.
|
United States43813 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't.
Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too.
I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one.
The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process.
|
United States43813 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. Hi, Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything. Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that. Thanks. Maybe not election fraud, but it's still fraud. The defense that Bernie's supporters knew it was rigged isn't a very good one either.
What kind of fraud was it? Which part was fraudulent?
|
On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Drumpf? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Drumpf while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Drumpf is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Drumpf ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. Hi, Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything. Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that. Thanks. Maybe not election fraud, but it's still fraud. The defense that Bernie's supporters knew it was rigged isn't a very good one either.
How does injecting your own hypothetical make what he said factually untrue ?
edit: nevermind ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
