• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alfalfa said:
Because a good fraction of the US considers Trump to be an even worse candidate. I am not saying that Hillary is a good candidate, I am just giving you an answer to your question.
Click to expand...
I know lol. That is the correct answer to the question. People who pretend like there is a somewhat decent candidate are delusional. Past elections have pitted somewhat decent candidates against each other. Guess we went further down, not up.

As for the not a big deal comment about the iranian scientist, it is a big deal. She had discussed this spy on her private server and now he ends up dead. I don't know if he would still be alive if she used the email she was suppose to, but it might have helped and she wouldn't be blameless. She claims to have the nations best interests and everything she does is counter to that statement. But I guess if you support her, you need to dismiss everything she does that makes her a terrible candidate
 
Bughouse said:
Meanwhile, I don't know where your claim about europe not doing electronic voting comes from lmao. Many countries allow straight up Internet voting, which is waaaaaaay more hackable than thousands of individual voting machines.
Click to expand...

It's not my claim. The video you have refused to watch is what claims this. Even so, I have further investigated it for you, and here is what Wikipedia says on the matter:

"However, there has been contention, especially in the United States, that electronic voting, especially DRE voting, could facilitate electoral fraudand may not be fully auditable. In addition, electronic voting has been criticised as unnecessary and expensive to introduce. Several countries have cancelled e-voting systems or decided against a large-scale rollout, notably the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.[10][11]"


"Transparency[edit]
It has been alleged by groups such as the UK-based Open Rights Group[42][43] that a lack of testing, inadequate audit procedures, and insufficient attention given to system or process design with electronic voting leaves "elections open to error and fraud".

In 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany found that when using voting machines the "verification of the result must be possible by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject." The DRE Nedap-computers used till then did not fulfill that requirement. The decision did not ban electronic voting as such, but requires all essential steps in elections to be subject to public examinability.[44][45]

In 2013, The California Association of Voting Officials was formed to maintain efforts toward publicly owned General Public License open source voting systems"


And contrary to what you think, I don't want election fraud to be real. At all. I'm merely looking at the evidence, and arriving to a conclusion. At worst, I might have arrived at an early conclusion. But please don't be arrogant in thinking that I've definitely arrived at the wrong conclusion. I don't think what I think out of hatred for Clinton. I'm merely looking at the evidence points, and arriving at a conclusion. Nothing more. Am I wrong? I hope to God I am.

As for you're points above: I'll research and either confirm, debunk, or explain them in due time. I just got up, and have things to do (which I won't bore you by listing them). If you had taken the time to make a post above in the first place, it would have made things so much easier for both of us, but thank you very much for making them now.

There is nothing wrong about being skeptical. Even I'm skeptical to a degree, if you can even believe that. But please keep an open mind. Is that too much to ask for? The only thing that matters is looking at the evidence, and the truth. That is the only thing that matters. THE truth. Not my truth, or your truth.

Let's make a deal: I'll look into your evidence against voting fraud, and you look into my evidence that supports voting fraud, and we'll support or explain away each other's points. We don't have to do it now. Do it when you have the time. Do it carefully and slowly. There is no need to rush things, because this is way too important a subject to do that. Old Gregg also gave me some stuff to look over. If it passes as "plausible", I might post it here.

We need not have this antagonistic relationship. That goes for you too Oddish the best!
 
Last edited:
“With Gary Johnson polling in some places more than double digits, they might have, some of our production people may have said, ‘Just in case, you need to plan out what that might look like,’” Commission on Presidential Debates co-chair and former Bill Clinton White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry told POLITICO. "We won’t know the number of invitations we extend until mid-September."


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/debates-clinton-trump-johnson-stein-226806
 
The problem with Johnson is that he really haven't been subjected to the kinds of attacks being thrown between the democrats and the republicans, and therefore people only see his good side. A little digging will show, that among other things, he regularly smokes weed. I don't have that much a problem with it, but that's probably enough to turn off a lot of voters.

An independent/libertarian ticket has a very, very, very, low chance of winning a general election, and even if that happened, there would be no way that enough people would vote for enough congressmen to push his policies. Any Supreme Court Justices he would nominate would likely be loose cannons that are swing votes on particular issues.

If you really want change why don't we convince enough people to actually vote for the other officials and not just the president.

manodelrey said:
She had discussed this spy on her private server and now he ends up dead. I don't know if he would still be alive if she used the email she was suppose to, but it might have helped
Click to expand...

Probably not. Her email server's security was probably only slightly less secure than a comparable State Dept. email server. Just a guess tho
 
Last edited:
sunny004 said:
The problem with Johnson is that he really haven't been subjected to the kinds of attacks being thrown between the democrats and the republicans, and therefore people only see his good side. A little digging will show, that among other things, he regularly smokes weed. I don't have that much a problem with it, but that's probably enough to turn off a lot of voters.

An independent/libertarian ticket has a very, very, very, low chance of winning a general election, and even if that happened, there would be no way that enough people would vote for enough congressmen to push his policies. Any Supreme Court Justices he would nominate would likely be

If you really want change why don't we convince enough people to actually vote for the other officials and not just the president.
Click to expand...

Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with Hillary Clinton.
Democrats in Congress wouldn't work with Donald Trump
Both would reject Donald Trump's most extreme plans (The Wall)

Gary Johnson is the middle ground for both sides in that he'd be able to work with the Democrats on the social side and the Republicans on the economic side. I hear 80-90% of Congress is up for election, I'm definitely excited for that. :p
 
sunny004 said:
Probably not. Her email server's security was probably only slightly less secure than a comparable State Dept. email server. Just a guess tho
Click to expand...
Like I said, probably a better chance that he would have been around. But now how many operations and operatives have been compromised because of her hacks? Her email server had little to no security from potential hacks and thanks to her massive email dumps, she probably got rid of any number of smoking guns against her. And since there has been little probing about this, she will just scoot along until trump does something stupid

Edit
Shrug said:
trump just made a joke about how someone should shoot hillary clinton lol
Click to expand...
Like so. Apparently one of the actual classes that did what they said they would at Trump University was how to lose a general election to one of the most hated people on the planet
 
Going away from the controversial election fraud issue to be the first introduce a new contestant who has thrown his hat into the Hungry for Power Games (sorry, couldn't just couldn't resist! God knows a need the laugh!).

Introducing Evan Mcmullin!

Yeah, I think Trump is totally screwed. If he wins, then it will (probably) prove one of two things: most Americans are stupid and it is time to start over, or the elections were rigged, and...it is still time to start over. Hey, that sounds like something Bill Maher might say!

Edit: Dear Bughouse, I did some research to try to explain your points:
1) I wish I know what your source is regarding the amount of precincts that does use electronic voting. It would even help if I knew which precincts used any form of electronic voting machines. My attempts to find out how many has been unsuccessful. Incidentally, a study has shown that Bernie did better in states that used hand counted ballots, while Hillary did better in states that used electronic voting.

"In fact, one of the statistical models applied by Stanford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots.

In these locations Hillary won by massive margins.

On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton."
Source of quote:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanfor...on-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
However, since this is an obvious conspiracy theory website, both Old Gregg and I have agreed it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, the number of votes electronically counted is definitely a factor that might prove in favor or against voters fraud. It all depends on the number.

2) and 3) The problem is that any sort of voting machine that stores data electronically can have it's data altered. It might not matter how different they are. I guess that some are more or less hackable than others. It is also a matter of transparency, and how many different e-voting machines there are. I guess it shouldn't be discounted as a factor. Different methods might be harder to hack without being noticed.

And at this point, I'm not even suggesting switching to another particular form of ballot count, just something that is harder to rig. It's possible that we'll just need to make the electronic voting machine process more transparent and be able to enforce action against any election fraud. And election fraud has been the bane of democracy since it's earliest days, and I don't mean America. Here's an interesting quote from this article that is relevant to the discussion, and which I'd like you to read when you're not busy.

"After all, elections have been getting rigged since before any of us were swimming around in utero. In fact, ancient Greece, where democracy was born, was just as susceptible to political corruption as we are today. Rome even had laws referred to as Ambitus which strictly prohibited election rigging and bribery. That means election rigging is as old as democracy itself, and it’s arguable that you simply cannot have an election without attempts at rigging the outcome. But that’s why we have laws, to promote accountability and to get a result that is as close to what the population wants as possible. Now, if only we could enforce those laws, we might be able to have an honest person in the White House."

Honestly, when I have the time after dinner (or tomorrow), I'd like to look further into your points. They are complicated, and with any sources, it will be difficult to verify them, and then...well, research if there can be significant fraud even with all of this being true. I just have to stop for now.

Edit: I think my next step is to try and see if I can find a ratio of electronic to paper ballot, and look up the number of different election machines, and their susceptibility to hacking.

Hopefully, I can come up with something. In the mean time, not a bad start Bughouse. I wish you started off with this posts ago, rather than just shrugging off my points as, well pointless. It would have saved us both a whole lot of trouble!
 
Last edited:
Evan McMullin has missed about 20-30 state ballot access deadlines, is conservative, and Mormon. While I'm not one for conspiracy theories, his decision to join the race this damn late seems more as to undermine possible support from undecided voters away from Gary Johnson as opposed to Donald Trump, especially in Utah considering that is where Johnson seems to be polling his best.

Tomorrow is the ballot-access deadline for Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. In a little more than 24 hours, the ‪Great New Hope (Independent candidate Evan McCullin) will likely start off his Electoral College career 0 and 34.
 
lol a friend of mine works for McMullen McDonald or whatever his name is. He's running for president in the way that I'm running for president. I will be genuinely shocked if he receives more than 10,000 votes. He's a nonfactor.
 
The first thing I would like to say is that it is incredibly difficult to find any source on the internet that isn't so far biased it's hard to even consider it truth. Good lord. I couldn't manage to look up any of the things discussed in this thread without a million different obviously far left or right leaning sources screaming at me. This is entirely aggravating.

Second of all, to assume that voter fraud isn't happening, or being attempted on some basis every single year is silly. Quite obviously there will always be people who are willing to go to extremes to see their political agenda come true. However, just because something is "hackable", doesn't mean that it was, at least on a large scale. It's very easy to simply see stories of it happening and assume that it was simply rampant everywhere possible, but that is most likely entirely not the case.

Statistically, based simply on the fact that electronic voting machines are able to be hacked or rigged, it is just as likely that the electronic voting machines were not "hacked" in any substantial way as it is to that they were, and to say they were is just to assume the worst with no substantial reasoning behind it. At no point in this election was Bernie Sanders on track to win the nomination, or even coming close to catching up, so why would Hillary need to "rig" those elections in states yet to vote, most of which she was already polling ahead of Sanders in? The fact is that 2 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders during the nomination process, and, as any good revolutionary following does, Bernie's supporters are just trying to find a way to make themselves feel like they didn't really lose. Bernie himself has stated that he doesn't believe the election was rigged.

On a related note, now that these claims are being made by Bernie supports, Donald Trump has jumped on the train and convinced his voters that the only way he could lose is if she rigged the election. According to thenation.com (a left leaning cite, admittedly, but this isn't opinions it's polls which they didn't perform themselves) "Sixty-nine percent of Trump’s North Carolina voters say that if Clinton wins, that means the election was rigged (only 16 percent believe it would be because she got the most votes.) Forty percent think ACORN—which no longer exists—will steal the election for the Democrats."

At this point, if you are going to vote for either candidate you essentially fit into one of three things:
  1. You are able to overlook many undermining qualities and past mistakes in favor of what the candidate does have to offer.
  2. You find yourself agreeing with literally everything the candidate says and truly believe they can make a difference and introduce their policies for the betterment of our nation.
  3. You harbor such a deep hatred for the opposing side that you will vote for anyone but them.
I'm interested in knowing which category everyone thinks they fit into best and why (and would appreciate it if people aren't rude as hell to the people who answer my poll. People are allowed to have opinions, let them speak.)
 
BlueSkiddoWeCanToo said:
At this point, if you are going to vote for either candidate you essentially fit into one of three things:
  1. You are able to overlook many undermining qualities and past mistakes in favor of what the candidate does have to offer.
  2. You find yourself agreeing with literally everything the candidate says and truly believe they can make a difference and introduce their policies for the betterment of our nation.
  3. You harbor such a deep hatred for the opposing side that you will vote for anyone but them.
I'm interested in knowing which category everyone thinks they fit into best and why (and would appreciate it if people aren't rude as hell to the people who answer my poll. People are allowed to have opinions, let them speak.)
Click to expand...


1. There's too many qualities and mistakes in Clinton and Trump for me to ever consider swallowing my pride and picking one of them.

2. I honestly don't find myself agreeing with either a good majority of the time.

3. I harbor such a hatred for both Clinton and Trump that I am not voting for either of them.

Anyone else ever use iSideWith? I really wish many in this thread would stop pretending that other candidates don't exist in the race. Gary Johnson's been getting some decent coverage the past few months and even has two prime time live CNN Town Hall episodes under his name, while Jill Stein will be having her first prime time live CNN Town Hall on August 17th.

6540eFP.png

irFgHA1.png
 
Last edited:
RoadsterUFO said:
1. There's too many qualities and mistakes in Clinton and Trump for me to ever consider swallowing my pride and picking one of them.

2. I honestly don't find myself agreeing with either a good majority of the time.

3. I harbor such a hatred for both Clinton and Trump that I am not voting for either of them.

Anyone else ever use iSideWith? I really wish many in this thread would stop pretending that other candidates don't exist in the race. Gary Johnson's been getting some decent coverage the past few months and even has two prime time live CNN Town Hall episodes under his name, while Jill Stein will be having her first prime time live CNN Town Hall on August 17th.

6540eFP.png
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same vigor as you do for finding a candidate you truly believe in policy wise (I respect you greatly for that). I sincerely wish that a third party candidate could do well in this election, but the fact is there are so many people stuck in their trenches of their ideals that they wont even consider wavering from them long enough to even check these candidates out.

After visiting the website myself, iSideWith is actually fantastic. Everyone please use this. It is a very easy and reasonably unbiased way to discover your actual interests and the importance of issues to you, as well as the candidates who follow the same ideals.
 
Regarding iSideWith, to get the most precise results make sure to answer all the additional questions & to use the importance sliders on each question regarding how important that issue is to you

Ex: Least important, Less important, Somewhat important, More important, Most important

Don't forget to save your results!

Edit, Other Useful Info:

- The Libertarian Party ticket is currently on 39 states and is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states by November.

- The Green Party ticket is currently on 27 states and is expected to be on the ballot in 47 states by November

- The Constitution Party ticket is currently on the ballot in 17 states and is expected to be on more in the coming months.

- Independent candidate Evan McMullin is currently on 0 states.

- 5% of the vote for a 3rd Party candidate in the general election grants their respective party Minor Party status, qualification for federal funding, & automatic ballot access in all 50 states in 2020.

- 15% in five national polls allows a 3rd Party candidate access to participate in the general election presidential debates with Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump in front of a worldwide audience, although the Debates Commission are now preparing a third podium and may allow a 3rd party candidate into the debates if they're "close enough" in the polls.

- Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson's highest national polling number has been 13%. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been featured in two one-hour live CNN Town Hall episodes on prime time television.

- Presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein's highest national polling number has been 7%. CNN will be hosting a one-hour live "Green Town Hall" on August 17th with Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka.

- Constitution Party nominee Darrell Castle and Independent candidate Evan McMullin have not been featured in any national polls.

- If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives & Senate. The rules say that they are allowed to decide among the top 3 leading candidates in electoral votes. The House decides the President, the Senate decides the Vice President.

- Under unique circumstances, the House Speaker may be elected President.


Regarding write in votes:


- Only 8 states allow no drawbracks restriction free write in votes that count.

- A majority of states technically allow write in votes, but a bunch of regulations are put in place to null the write in vote. If the candidate being voted in as a write in vote never met all the requirements to be counted as a write in vote in one of those states, a write in vote for said candidate be it Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Austin Petersen, John McAfee, etc. will not be counted.

- The other remaining states don't allow any write in votes all together.
 
Last edited:
Then again remember that isidewith shouldn't magically tell you who to vote for, as presidents don't pass laws, they enforce them. The president's most significant roles that sort of matter are foreign policies, though.
 
GatoDelFuego said:
Then again remember that isidewith shouldn't magically tell you who to vote for, as presidents don't pass laws, they enforce them. The president's most significant roles that sort of matter are foreign policies, though.
Click to expand...

http://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton/foreign-policy

Those war mongering stances though.

*shudders*

Edit: Though too be perfectly fair, I would take what Hillary and Trump say on foreign policy with a grain of salt as it'd more than likely be very different than what either would actually decide to do.
 
Anyone else notice the Orlando shooters father sitting behind Clinton in that florida rally? Wonder if she will get questioned about it in the little to no press conferences she does
 
TheValkyries said:
?????

Edit: but why give a fuck though?
Click to expand...
If the father of Dylann Roof was sitting behind trump during a rally and proudly supporting him, you wouldn't give a fuck? Really? After all the shit was brought up (rightly so) about David Duke's endorsement of Trump we just let it slide about the orlando shooters father who thinks the Taliban should be winning and that gays will be punished not only supporting her, but in prime position behind her at a rally? He has to be specially placed behind her, that isn't a coincidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EV
Dylan roofs father isn't Dylan roof though? Like I genuinely could not care less who he is the father of. Being a mass murdering fuck ass isn't necessarily genetic. Seddique Mateen certainly is a fuck ass in his own right but it isn't even close to remotely registering on my radar of things to take issue with.
 
Well I guess we just chuck another one up to the double standard then, like the trump university scandal yet wrongful death lawsuits against clinton have gotten crickets
 
manodelrey said:
Well I guess we just chuck another one up to the double standard then, like the trump university scandal yet wrongful death lawsuits against clinton have gotten crickets
Click to expand...

Wait a second, there have actually been wrongful death lawsuits against Clinton?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top