[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430831]I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag.
Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever thought that maybe there isn't any conspiracy at all and that if they wanted her to win she would've won? She lost cause frankly her campaign sucked and people lost trust in her. There's no conspiracy here at all, dude.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430719]But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air.
I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January,[B] the forces behind her campaign are too powerful[/B]. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.[/QUOTE]
yeah man I hear the illuminati is going to rig the election so that she wins anyway :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=Cructo;51430949]Yeah, I confronted your non-argument with a non-argument. You brought up something that isn't really taken into account in this process I.e. the popular vote. It's a pointless argument to bring up considering that is how it has always been decided in the US. Now, if you are going to use the popular vote as the ultimate power of decision making at least be coherent and accept that the brexit was also decided by popular vote and therefore it should be accepted
Back to the US election, as I have said many times and you will continue to ignore, this is how it has always been in the Constitution. If the people want change, they should do it through the legal means. Hey if you want I can get you the emails for your representatives and you can contact them and voice your concerns.
Now, if we are done dancing around this point I'd really like to see a good point from your end so this is not yet another pointless discussion, otherwise I am not going to bother with your posts in this topic anymore.[/QUOTE]
Oh it's evident the people wanted change alright, they wanted it so badly they elected a reality tv star buffoon who can't even decide on what he wants his policies to be, instead trying to pander to all the people he alienated during the campaign. The people are going to be pleased as punch when he does away with most of the money in the national treasury by spending it on garbage, sends the economy into a tailspin, and makes the unemployment rate shoot up still further. Oh, don't forget all those manufacturing jobs he said he was going to bring back.
My point is, if you fell for such obvious lies during a campaign, preferring an unknown quantity to a known one, people are right to point and say that 'we told you so'. Can't wait for these same people claiming Trump's win was a "victory of democracy" when he does away with net neutrality.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430814]Isn't there a difference between an audit and a recount? They're doing the latter here.
I know I'm paranoid, but I honestly think I have good reason to be at this point. Hillary was backed by an unprecedented alliance of the most wealthy and powerful people [B][U]on the planet[/U][/B]. They had a lot invested in her winning the Presidency, numerous agendas were absolutely dependent on her being President for at least the next 4 years.
But instead she lost to someone they had nothing but the utmost contempt for and posed an unprecedented threat to their interests.
Trump represents a threat to the neoliberal world order that has existed since the end of the Cold War, he wants to pursue a peaceful relationship with Russia and end the foreign policy that has resulted in American Hegemony over the whole world. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI"]Not too different from a certain other president.[/URL]
Bottom line: how could I not be concerned that there are conspiracies under way right this instant to deny him the presidency? even if Clinton isn't involved there are plenty of powerful people with an interest in her becoming President, come hell or high water.[/QUOTE]
this is just the stupidest conspiracy theory lol. you're not going to convince anyone that she has [I]all that power[/I] when [I]all that power[/I] couldn't win her the fucking election, BUT will somehow give her back the victory [I][B]after she already lost[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51430949]Back to the US election, as I have said many times and you will continue to ignore, this is how it has always been in the Constitution. If the people want change, they should do it through the legal means. Hey if you want I can get you the emails for your representatives and you can contact them and voice your concerns.
Now, if we are done dancing around this point I'd really like to see a good point from your end so this is not yet another pointless discussion, otherwise I am not going to bother with your posts in this topic anymore.[/QUOTE]
But if the people want an actually representative democracy they may not succeed in achieving it through democratic means since they don't have proper democratic representation in the first place...
You can't justify that your current electoral system represents the will of the people by saying that the will of the people shapes the electoral system through democratic means. That's circular logic, the will of the people needs to be properly represented in the first place for that to be true.
What "The will of the people" means is something that is objectively defined, not something that is decided democratically.
You can't compare a FPTP election with a non binding referendum, especially a referendum in the UK - they've had a GRAND TOTAL of about 3 of them so frankly they're shite at it.
While ignoring the referendum result in the UK would be stupid, that doesn't mean it isn't an awful decision and shouldn't have been handled by a referendum.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51430949]Yeah, I confronted your non-argument with a non-argument. You brought up something that isn't really taken into account in this process I.e. the popular vote. It's a pointless argument to bring up considering that is how it has always been decided in the US. Now, if you are going to use the popular vote as the ultimate power of decision making at least be coherent and accept that the brexit was also decided by popular vote and therefore it should be accepted
Back to the US election, as I have said many times and you will continue to ignore, this is how it has always been in the Constitution. If the people want change, they should do it through the legal means. Hey if you want I can get you the emails for your representatives and you can contact them and voice your concerns.
Now, if we are done dancing around this point I'd really like to see a good point from your end so this is not yet another pointless discussion, otherwise I am not going to bother with your posts in this topic anymore.[/QUOTE]
You have once again attempted to shift the topic.
[B]Answer the question Cructo.[/B]
You believe the will of the people should be respected. The will of the people will be ignored if we put Trump into power. So which is it? Do we respect the will of the people, or do we ignore it? Blabbering on about the constitution is avoiding the question. Blabbering on about me is avoiding the question. Pitifully bringing up Brexit is avoiding the question. All you ever do is avoid direct questions and run away from threads. Until you do one of those two, I won't stop asking.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51430949]Now, if you are going to use the popular vote as the ultimate power of decision making at least be coherent and accept that the brexit was also decided by popular vote and therefore it should be accepted [/quote]
Brexit was near-as-makes-no-difference a tie. Flipping a pound coin would have represented the will of the British People about as well as that referendum did.
[quote]Back to the US election, as I have said many times and you will continue to ignore, this is how it has always been in the Constitution. If the people want change, they should do it through the legal means. [/quote]
Which is impossible, because the people who are required to act to change the system through legal means are the people who stand the lose the most from those changes, who stand to gain the most from maintaining the status quo. You're not going to convince them to act that severely against their own futures. It's why we're not getting rid of FPTP anytime soon, again, the people who would need to write, vote on, and pass the bills abolishing it and installing something better are the people who would lose their careers in doing so. They're not going to throw away their cushy gigs that are all but locked in(Thanks to Gerrymandering, another issue that's never getting fixed for the same reason, it's incredibly difficult for them to lose re-election).
It's all well and good to say 'Well do it through legal channels', but here's the rub: [b]We've already tried that.[/b] It doesn't work. Our voices fall on deaf ears every time we try to request changes to the system itself. Unless someone's willing to throw a couple hundred million at the best lawyers in America and do it via a case seen by the Supreme Court it ain't gonna happen.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51431017]You have once again attempted to shift the topic.
[B]Answer the question Cructo.[/B]
You believe the will of the people should be respected. The will of the people will be ignored if we put Trump into power. So which is it? Do we respect the will of the people, or do we ignore it? Blabbering on about the constitution is avoiding the question. Blabbering on about me is avoiding the question. Pitifully bringing up Brexit is avoiding the question. All you ever do is avoid direct questions and run away from threads. Until you do one of those two, I won't stop asking.[/QUOTE]
Since we're talking about somebody who wanted Trump to win mainly because he wanted it to give impetus for a right wing party to win the Brazilian elections, engaging him in any form of conversation is a waste of time. He got what he wanted, as did all the other Trump supporters, and now all they're primarily interested in doing is still telling us how "he's not going to be as bad as you think" even after those terrible cabinet picks and all the damage planned for climate change research and environmental/factory regulations, to say nothing of net neutrality going for a toss. Until what he does directly affects them, I doubt you'd see any change in their views. And once his four years in office are up, I'll bet any money the majority of them will shift the blame to Obummer and Bush Jr. instead of blaming Trump.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51431032]Since we're talking about somebody who wanted Trump to win mainly because he wanted it to give impetus for a right wing party to win the Brazilian elections, engaging him in any form of conversation is a waste of time. He got what he wanted, as did all the other Trump supporters, and now all they're primarily interested in doing is still telling us how "he's not going to be as bad as you think" even after those terrible cabinet picks and all the damage planned for climate change research and environmental/factory regulations, to say nothing of net neutrality going for a toss. Until what he does directly affects them, I doubt you'd see any change in their views. And once his four years in office are up, I'll bet any money the majority of them will shift the blame to Obummer and Bush Jr. instead of blaming Trump.[/QUOTE]
Don't be silly. They are going to blame ¡Jeb!
[QUOTE=Cructo;51431040]See. You do exactly what you accuse me of doing . Let me rephrase my original point to see if you manage to grasp it
If the recount in this particular state shows that the people of this state decided in favor of the other candidate, it should be respected in this state. If it still shows a lead for the current candidate in this particular state, the will of the people in this state is to be respected.
I still dont know how you managed to dodge this and turn it into an argument about the federal popular vote.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for finally answering my question. This is the first time in all of your posting I have ever seen you answer a direct question.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51431040]See. You do exactly what you accuse me of doing . Let me rephrase my original point to see if you manage to grasp it
If the recount in this particular state shows that the people of this state decided in favor of the other candidate, it should be respected in this state. If it still shows a lead for the current candidate in this particular state, the will of the people in this state is to be respected.
I still dont know how you managed to dodge this and turn it into an argument about the federal popular vote.[/QUOTE]
To respect the people's will a state would need to represent its citizens proportionally in the elections though, which nearly none of them do.
[editline]26th November 2016[/editline]
That would make stuff like recounts way less needed too, since a few % of inaccuracy at state level wouldn't be able to completely change the outcome of an election.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51431098]If you feel I didn't answer your question directly in any of these posts then I'm sorry that I didn't make it simple enough in the first place, my bad.[/QUOTE]
Being condescending isn't helping you.
Didn't Hillary already concede?
[QUOTE=buckethead64;51431167]Didn't Hillary already concede?[/QUOTE]
As far as I know it doesn't just automatically take you out of the running.
Didn't Trump win by 70,000 votes in Wisconsin? That'd be a fairly huge fraud case if it turned out to be that Clinton won.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51431181]Didn't Trump win by 70,000 votes in Wisconsin? That'd be a fairly huge fraud case if it turned out to be that Clinton won.[/QUOTE]
it's 1,383,926 - 1,411,432, so less than 30k
This all sounds familiar
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvZCoNWWcAAuBBM.jpg[/t]
Clinton campaign said they are taking part in the recount.
Isn't this exactly what people mocked Trump for saying he would do?
[QUOTE=buckethead64;51431217]Clinton campaign said they are taking part in the recount.
Isn't this exactly what people mocked Trump for saying he would do?[/QUOTE]
No they mocked Trump for saying that the election was rigged, something Clinton never did.
I wouldn't have had a problem with Trump asking for a recount if he didn't say the election was rigged, or if he hadn't taken back his comments on the Electoral College in 2012.
[QUOTE=buckethead64;51431217]Clinton campaign said they are taking part in the recount.
Isn't this exactly what people mocked Trump for saying he would do?[/QUOTE]
No, people mocked Trump for saying he would refuse to concede, which Hill-Dog did.
Well Trump said we're gonna keep winning, I guess this will count too, I get to enjoy him beating her again
[QUOTE=Episode;51431210]This all sounds familiar
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvZCoNWWcAAuBBM.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
How many people are going to make this joke when the first seven words in the OP are "Jill Stein has requested a full recount?"
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51430827]Democrats aren't neoliberal, for one. Neoliberalism is pretty much the opposite of the social democrat line.
Secondly - why, if Hillary was being backed by this super powerful conglomerate, would the election not be called in her favour? If they had the means and the will to rig the election, why didn't they? Why wait until now?[/QUOTE]
[B]They are [B]Modern American liberalists, [/B][/B]they are not social democrats.
[QUOTE=MasterKade;51431283]How many people are going to make this joke when the first seven words in the OP are "Jill Stein has requested a full recount?"[/QUOTE]
That's a nice shield you have, but we all know that Jill Stien isn't doing it because she thinks that she won the election.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51431358]That's a nice shield you have, but we all know that Jill Stien isn't doing it because she thinks that she won the election.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542662"]There's belief from unbiased professionals that there is evidence of hacking in these states[/URL]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51431358]That's a nice shield you have, but we all know that Jill Stien isn't doing it because she thinks that she won the election.[/QUOTE]
She's not exactly doing it to help Clinton either. She doesn't like her.
#bringbacksmurfy2016
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51431470]She's not exactly doing it to help Clinton either. She doesn't like her.[/QUOTE] It's the lesser of two evils thing again. I can easily imagine Jill wanting Hillary in office much more than Trump.
Literally doing the same thing Trump promised to do, and he got blasted for suggesting such a thing.
If it wasn't okay then why is it okay now?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
