• Trump rushed off stage by Secret Service at Nevada rally
    178 replies, posted
Brietbart. Ridge, brietbart. How can you ask me to take that seriously? How can [B]YOU[/B] take that seriously? The former CEO of Brietbart is part of Trumps campaign team. The former President of Citizens United is part of Trumps campaign team. How can anyone seriously be expected to take anyone from that group as an honest person?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51318831]Nah, neither trump nor his followers are going anywhere. The GOP elite created this monster, they're going to have to live with it for a while Clinton does the important work.[/QUOTE] No, they're not going anywhere. They're not going to the White House. They're not going to the House of Reps They're not going to the Senate. They're going to stay at home and violently type hateful messages on Facebook about how Obama was an evil muslim foreigner and nothing more.
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times try their best to be neutral. Just because you believe there might not be any "neutral sources" left doesn't excuse the fact that someone tried to link a source here that's literally banned from here because it's shite.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51318721]There's no voter ID. I could fly over tomorrow, vote, go to another state, vote again, and fly back. [/QUOTE] Not in Florida lmao. Still though you should try. Maybe being slapped with a felony would stop you from making brazenly ignorant posts
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51318623]Your election is so sensitive to fraud yet (democrats?) block any kind of central registration?[/QUOTE] They block the legislation because it's not aimed at voter fraud, it's an attempt at voter suppression. Stuff like requiring you to get an $20 ID from the DMV which is open twice a month and based 30 miles away, which may reject you when you get there anyway. In my own state when we had Voter ID, this old black woman kept being rejected when she tried to get a Voter ID. First they told her they needed her original Birth Certificate, then she needed her original SSN Card, then they asked for her husband's Death Certificate. Her story was actually used as a case to get Voter ID overturned here. [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51318721]There's no voter ID. I could fly over tomorrow, vote, go to another state, vote again, and fly back.[/QUOTE] Do it then. You'll be just like that [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/]Iowa woman who committed voter fraud[/url] to prove how easy it was. She's facing felony charges.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318792]Do you realize that you choose to ignore any source I post because you don't like the content, or are you going to be the same person you called me earlier in another thread? Also, your posts are being starred at a shockingly fast rate. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] What fucking narrative is there?! Do you bother to read through the quotes in the articles?[/QUOTE] It's all a giant conspiracy to boost up pro-Clinton posts! [quote]Trump’s primary opponents, too, blamed Trump for the riot that closed down his Chicago rally in April — rather than blaming the organized left-wing groups that created the chaos. All of that has helped the left establish the predicate for future spin, so that when Donald Trump cites the familiar refrain that gun owners will defend their rights, he is accused of wanting to assassinate Hillary Clinton, and large portions of the media — including conservative media — believe it. What Wikileaks has uncovered is evidence that the strategy goes straight to the top-most levels of the Democratic National Committee — a plan to defeat Trump by sowing fear of violence by any means necessary, including, perhaps, the use of violence itself. That is why the Clinton campaign has hitched itself to a violent, extremist movement like Black Lives Matter, even though the primary is over and she ought to be pivoting to the center. The point is to encourage the chaos — and blame Trump for it.[/quote] here's a quote from the Breitbart page. Trump won't defend any gun rights, he'll just pass a law that lets him restrict gun ownership by putting people on an FBI watchlist that nobody has access to except the government as it pleases him. Also BLM have already openly cut any ties, if they had any in the first place, with Clinton by saying that they're backing Stein instead. They too don't believe anything she says and consider her too corrupt to vote in. So much for BLM being staunch supporters of Clinton. As for Trump's rally being shut down, Trump has only himself to blame for spewing enough divisive rhetoric to make minority groups hate him that much. As far as I know not even Romney ever went as far as this idiot did. I don't agree that violence is a solution to any problems but let's be real, Trump has been far more overt about supporting violence when he literally said he'll pay for the legal fees of whoever beats up any protesters at his rallies. I admit pro-dem supporters have also gone too far and beaten up peaceful supporters of Trump, but don't deny that this would have happened had your bigmouth of a candidate not kept "saying things like it is" and alienating folks that far when it came to violence. It's as much his fault as it is the fault of the idiotic democrats who took it as an invitation to make the mistakes in the first place. And when you say that "you should exercise your second amendment right when Clinton gets elected so that problems can be solved by preventing undesirable choices" and the same for her elected SCOTUS judges, that's as close to implying you'd see her being shot if the chance came. No sensible candidate should stoop to this level.
re: voter fraud [video=youtube;sOgcY8WvVdU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgcY8WvVdU[/video]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51318914]As for Trump's rally being shut down, Trump has only himself to blame for spewing enough divisive rhetoric to make minority groups hate him that much. As far as I know not even Romney ever went as far as this idiot did. I don't agree that violence is a solution to any problems but let's be real, Trump has been far more overt about supporting violence when he literally said he'll pay for the legal fees of whoever beats up any protesters at his rallies. I admit pro-dem supporters have also gone too far and beaten up peaceful supporters of Trump, but don't deny that this would have happened had your bigmouth of a candidate not kept "saying things like it is" and alienating folks that far when it came to violence. It's as much his fault as it is the fault of the idiotic democrats who took it as an invitation to make the mistakes in the first place.[/QUOTE] Please don't make this argument. Saying "well I don't support [unacceptable behavior] but it wouldn't have happened if Trump didn't ___" is only one step removed from justification. It doesn't help anyone and it's not a good argument.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51318944]Please don't make this argument. Saying "well I don't support [unacceptable behavior] but it wouldn't have happened if Trump didn't ___" is only one step removed from justification. It doesn't help anyone and it's not a good argument.[/QUOTE] Point taken, I'll not use this argument again. It just seems to me that less violence would have taken place if Trump weren't so divisive in the first place, and it's to be noted that political violence in the United States isn't exactly what you'd call a common occurrence, but it's not unknown either. They were more common during the turn of the century between industrial and financial sector supporters and trade/labor unionists. Political analysts and professors say in general that this violence is an increasing sign of mistrust of the system and political processes, especially when the people feel it's no longer possible to resolve differences peacefully through due process, so there violence becomes the end result.
[QUOTE=Octavius;51318574]Next, that woman who voted and is apparently dead: There's nothing to prove that she's dead, so that's pretty much meaningless (People are marked dead all the time even though they aren't. Also, I don't know where those records are from, but if it's a party's internal system, it happens all the time there. It just takes one misclick to mark somebody dead). We don't have any information on who she is, and there's no reason to get all suspicious with nothing to back it up (And we don't know if they are related or not, there's literally no evidence for anything). [/QUOTE] did a bit of additional investigating and the death date of that lady comes from a death certificate records search site. crosschecked on ancestory.com's social security death record search for a "wilda mae austin" which came up with the same death date, although i do not have the money to see the full record i cannot check if the date of birth is the same.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51318777]Do you have so little self awareness that you don't realize that you did exactly what I said you'd do, or do you just not care (like I said)?[/QUOTE] I knew Breitbart would've had heavy bias, but I wasn't familiar with why Daily Caller would be a bunk source, so I started looking. [img]http://i.imgur.com/5Kb8OhP.jpg[/img] What even are these articles? :v: That's not even turkey, that's [I]beef[/I]. :goodjob: [QUOTE=Ridge;51318808]Even the shitposters on /r/politics agree that the Daily Caller article is trustworthy. Maybe you should just accept it?[/QUOTE] Oh, well if reddit trusts it then it [I]must[/I] be okay.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51319387]Oh, well if 4Chan trusts it then it [I]must[/I] be okay.[/QUOTE] /r/politics is reddit lol
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51319418]/r/politics is reddit lol[/QUOTE] That's not much better to be honest.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51319418]/r/politics is reddit lol[/QUOTE] I mean discussing politics on reddit is just as bad as discussing them on 4chan. You're ultimately going to end up wanting to drill a nail through your genitals.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51319418]/r/politics is reddit lol[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware there was much difference between the two. :v: But you're right, my mistake. But as stated, not much better. (I avoid both 4Chan and reddit for that reason)
[QUOTE=plunger435;51318632]Can I get a source on both those claims.[/QUOTE] Theres literally nothing stopping me from taking the first airplane home and vote, even though i early voted already... there is no control. Consider how Belgian voting is so strict we get a letter in the mail with a picture, the name and ID number on your passport on it, It also has a number on the paper You can ONLY vote if you give that letter to a voting booth you were assigned, if you try a voting booth not assigned to you you cannot vote there, if you use your paper twice or make copies you will not be allowed to vote since they can see you already voted. Heck even in congo when they vote they dye your finger blue so they know you already voted. Nothing like that in the USA yet they claim less voting fraud attempts then Belgium... my logic simply does not process that. Im betting the voter fraud is simply not controlled for or known... [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51318771][url]https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet[/url] Until a solution presents itself where Americans will not be barred from casting their ballot on the basis of an ID or lack thereof, there's nothing wrong with not requiring an ID to vote. If anything this will disenfranchise the poorest Americans, who won't even have their right to vote available to them because they cannot obtain the narrow range of IDs accepted as valid to vote. Voting is a right, not a privilege, on top of which the so-called voter ID fraud occurs in such limited quantum that it doesn't threaten to destroy the concept of a free and fair election at all.[/QUOTE] Paint their fingers blue with dye... its simple, no simple way you can wash that off or tamper with it. If it works in 3th world countries it works in the US... if you refuse to change a bad system as a politician then something fishy is going on imo.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51319561]Heck even in congo when they vote they dye your finger blue so they know you already voted. Nothing like that in the USA yet they claim less voting fraud attempts then Belgium... my logic simply does not process that.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's because that's a terrible method of voter fraud prevention
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51319561] Im betting the voter fraud is simply not controlled for or known... [/QUOTE] Either you can believe it, bring up evidence otherwise, or be called a conspiracy nut because "I believe it anyway because the lack of evidence is somehow evidence!".
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51318929]re: voter fraud [video=youtube;sOgcY8WvVdU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgcY8WvVdU[/video][/QUOTE] 1. Optical scanners are computers too, often use computer software to report their tallies, and there's less of them, so if anything optical scanners are easier to attack. On the bright side, if the design of the ballot isn't a complete mess, manual recounts are easy to do. 2. VW managed to make software that detected if it was being tested to behave in a certain way in the name of money; how much money is there in rigging an election? Testing some black box of software, overseen or not, is no guarantee it's going to behave as expected on election day. 3. Combine #2 with the fact these polling machines aren't by any means stored securely for the vast amounts of time they aren't being used, widespread tampering is not nearly so far fetched as the video implies. 4. Nevermind that for some electronic voting systems you only need to compromise one per a county, e.g. "The iVotronic, then, may be programmed to create results media (at the end of the election day) that, in turn, corrupts the software of the central Unity system. The compromised Unity system, in turn, may be programmed to load corrupted firmware into all M100s and iVotronics in the county when provisioning a subsequent election. At this point, every major component of the system is running compromised code, which originated with a single attacker with only voter access in a single precinct." (source: [url]http://www.patrickmcdaniel.org/pubs/everest.pdf[/url] , lot of lovely insights into how completely and utter shit these systems are). 5. The video paints the disconnected nature of the elections as a good thing, and to some degree it is; but it also means the election system has varying degrees of security and competence because of this lack of centralization or standardization. 6. Further, even if the voting machines aren't tampered with, there's still the potential for flaws in the software itself, or incorrect configurations, to cause the devices to not report the correct vote tallies (which has happened). Or the fact these machines are breaking down because most of them were bought in 2000 when there was a big push in the federal government and now no one cares because it isn't plastered in the media everywhere. This video, or rather this mindset that oh electronic voting machines are great and there's nothing to worry about pisses me off because, even if it's unlikely (which I think that it is), the national election should not be this vulnerable to untraceable attack on a scope and scale that is vastly harder to accomplish with paper ballots counted by hand.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.