Wisconsin recount now underway - Polidicks

He should just give the twitter account to Milo and see how long that lasts

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51435351]He should just give the twitter account to Milo and see how long that lasts[/QUOTE] If/When he does become POTUS, the Chief of Staff is going to rip that account from his little hands so fast... Also I thought I could get away from most of this election bullshit but NOOOOOOOOOOOO I have to live in Wisconsin so I have to deal with it every damn day. I wonder if the GAB (or whatever bastard it became after Walker gutted it) will live stream the count. They did it for the recall petition verification. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] Also the recount petition, affidavit, and other stuff is already on the GAB website.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;51435338]now that he's gonna be the prez he should look into hiring someone to do that. like me! it'd be my dream job, getting paid to shitpost on twitter using nearly the same format over and over again. and depending on the pay, I'll even whip out the thesaurus now and then to really add some razzle dazzle to my rants.[/QUOTE] Sorry mate Laura Ingraham is already a candidate for that job and does it pretty well [url]https://twitter.com/CFTR[/url]

[QUOTE]The state faces a 13 December federal deadline to complete the recount, which may require canvassers in Wisconsin’s 72 counties to work evenings and weekends to finish the job in time, according to the commission.[/quote] Having been a canvassing manager, I do not envy these folks. Here's hoping they're getting paid alright for this. [Editline]g[/editline] Really, the time for this kind of activism passed a long time ago. I hope this whole debacle sparks a national conversation about the inefficiency of the popular vote.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51436062]Having been a canvassing manager, I do not envy these folks. Here's hoping they're getting paid alright for this. [Editline]g[/editline] Really, the time for this kind of activism passed a long time ago. I hope this whole debacle sparks a national conversation about the inefficiency of the popular vote.[/QUOTE] I think it should more-so spark a national conversation about the ineffectiveness of the Electoral College and it's anti-democratic way of being.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51436062]Having been a canvassing manager, I do not envy these folks. Here's hoping they're getting paid alright for this. [Editline]g[/editline] Really, the time for this kind of activism passed a long time ago. I hope this whole debacle sparks a national conversation about [B]the inefficiency of the popular vote[/B].[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51435318]Bigger shame that the president elect is such a petty, thin-skinned child that he has to stay up all night angrily tweeting conspiracy theories and insults about his political opposite.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but when I had a Twitter I found myself waking up in the middle of the night every now and then and popping out an inane tweet or two. I'm sure it's not unusual.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51436071]I don't know about you, but when I had a Twitter I found myself waking up in the middle of the night every now and then and popping out an inane tweet or two. I'm sure it's not unusual.[/QUOTE] As far as I'm aware you're not the leader of a country or have millions of people following your every word. ... unless there is something you'd like to tell us?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51436071]I don't know about you, but when I had a Twitter I found myself waking up in the middle of the night every now and then and popping out an inane tweet or two. I'm sure it's not unusual.[/QUOTE] When you happen to be the President of the United States you'd damn well better learn to behave like a President, instead of remaining the same onion-skinned buffoon you were before you got thrust into the Oval Office. Instead of reacting to all the inane shit people say about you, or trying to "defend" your supporters, try being above it all instead of reacting to everything people have to say about you. Leave that sort of behavior for the Trump army on Twitter or Facebook.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51432955]But that's not how it works which was my entire point, which you did not understand because of the below: The definition of disenfranchisement is not limited to literally revoking the ability to vote. It is also a way to refer to alienation. An example: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_disenfranchisement[/url] Alienated people are not necessarily lazy, or apathetic. I wish you could look past your contempt and see that. [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] winner takes all implied our first past the post electoral vote system[/QUOTE] [i]You[/i] don't understand: [quote]Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement[/url] Razzums isn't disenfranchised. TestECull isn't either. That's especially true in the national election for president; your vote as far as the popular vote is concerned still counts, and that's true now more than ever before what with Clinton taking a 2+ million lead over Trump. She was the preferred candidate. Any additional votes she could've received would've helped boost her even higher. Alienation is not a valid explanation, nor is it an excuse, in their situations. If you still have the ability to vote but you choose not to because of some absurd persecution complex, then that's still on you. You had the opportunity to contribute something, it takes minimal effort to participate and make that contribution, but you still chose not to. Nobody else is to blame but yourself. The article you linked to on the psychology of disenfranchisement is about the theory of an author and marketing ROI researcher; it's applied to marketing and advertising-- not political theory. [QUOTE=TestECull;51433190]No. You stop saying my voice doesn't matter because I don't waste my time casting a ballot in a state that's such a die-hard GOP stronghold that it would have still been called for trump fifteen minutes after election coverage if he had kicked proceedings off by shooting an orphan on fifth avenue in broad daylight. [img]http://i.imgur.com/fxwktVR.png[/img] Seriously. There is no fucking point here. With a map like that I see no way you can straightfacedly tell me my vote matters. And, hell, let's assume I'm in a swing state. Then what? [b]Both candidates are equally terrible and we would be better off not electing anyone at all than we are having elected one of them.[/b] Clinton is another case of 'corrupt, bought, career shitlord politician', and Trump is the very person that's buying the career shitlord politicians in the first place. They're both equal parts terrible and I don't want either of them in the oval office. My cat would be better as POTUS, hell I would make a better president. So where's that leave my voice on the ballot? RAndom background noise. If you aren't the GOP or Dem candidate you don't get a snowball's in hell. That's the entire reason why Bernie ran as a Dem, why Trump ran as GOP. Third parties do not get any traction in America, they never have, and they never will as long as we use the system we use. It actively kills them off and forces us into a binary choice between two absolute fucks. No, my voice matters just as much as anyone who voted's, and nothing you say, no namecalling, no apathy blame, will change that. Whether or not I throw a pointless ballot into a box on November 8th is irrelevant. I regularly bitch my senators and reps out over email...well, their aides anyway, I'm sure nobody's email ever actually reaches their eyes....and that's far more effective than anything I could ever do at the ballot box. I work my ass off 40+ hours a week, I pay federal income taxes, [b]my voice matters just as much as yours does whether you like that or not, whether you agree with that or not.[/b] The only thing telling us our voices don't matter does is encourage the very apathy you're claiming is the basis for our unwillingness to vote, just FYI. You might wanna try a different tactic, like, say, idunno, getting good candidates in the running.[/QUOTE] Meanwhile in my state: [IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/34fb0cz.jpg[/IMG] You're not the only one who is a holdout amongst an overwhelmingly Republican population lol, so stop acting like you were just overwhelmed and there was no point in even trying. Romney won here in 2012, and unsurprisingly Trump won here this time around. Except for the cities, which are the bastions of intelligent decisions in Missouri and hold the majority of our educated populace, we are and probably always will be a red Bible-beating conservative state. Eric Greitens-- a massive piece of shit who rails on about "I WAS A NAVY SEAL" and how terrible Obama is-- is now our governor, Roy Blunt (also a piece of shit) was elected to the Senate, we've got six new Republican representatives to two Democrats. Basically, if you move here, you know what you're going to get throughout most of the state. Save for the urban areas, but I already covered that. Your vote matters (or at least it would've) because it's still one vote that contribute to the overall outcome. That's especially true when it comes to the national popular vote. That's why we need to do away with the electoral college: the election for president is not a state-by-state matter, nor should it be treated as one; it's an overall national issue, and it should be a simple matter of whoever wins the most votes throughout the country overall is declared the winner. That's what I was originally going on about earlier. Also no, both candidates are not "equally terrible". It's objectively provable that Trump was and remains worse than Clinton, whether we're discussing the fact he hasn't paid his taxes in 20 years or his sexual abuse and rapist attitude towards women (which he openly bragged about), or when he made fun of that disabled reporter and laughed at disabled people, or when he stood up and bragged about how he could shoot somebody and get away with it because he was so popular, or when he made his assassination comment about Clinton and how she'd pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices, or when his bullshit university turned out to be a massive scam that he was completely unapologetic about, or when he claimed that Mexican immigrants were bringing drugs and crime and rapists (that last accusation is especially ironic given his situation), or when he said he'd like to establish a national database of all Muslims living in this country, or when he appointed fucking neo-Nazis and white supremacists to his transition team for his administration, or any one of the thousands of times he's been caught lying through his teeth without any remorse. Etfuckingc. This false/mythological relativism and equivalency needs to die. Having said all that, I understand why people voted for Trump as much as they did: because he's a Washington outsider who doesn't play the same "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" game that the others do; he's just out for himself. But having said that, he was and remains objectively worse than Clinton based off of his behavior and his inherently dishonest personality. The people that voted for him thought they were throwing a molotov cocktail into the system-- which in some ways is true-- but the result, unless they're prepared to stand up eventually and fight back against him and his administration to force an outcome that will ultimately benefit the American people and our country as a whole, is that instead an individual embodiment of the establishment was elected: a rich, corrupt, lying, narcissistic asshole who's only out for himself and has no political accountability at this point to anybody other than himself. Oh, Clinton lied about stuff, had corrupt behavior (like when she and bill stayed in that $100,000-a-week mansion in the Hamptons for two weeks), and had backers from the elite? That's nice. That shit pales in comparison that what Trump has done, speaking as somebody who repeatedly brought up how sad the state of affairs is in this country when we've been reduced to arguing over who is the "lesser of two evils" in the election. At least with Clinton, you knew you were getting somebody who was cleaner than Trump was (not exactly a hard standard to beat, but that doesn't make it any less true), and you knew that you were getting an establishment politician-- meaning business would go on just as usual, and there wouldn't be any of this surging in the alt-right which we're seeing today. And on that note, you're contradicting yourself. You're saying your voice doesn't matter when you vote, but then you're saying that sitting around on the Internet like we are now arguing about this shit and bitching about the state of affairs in the country... apparently means something, and your voice does in fact matter because reasons. Literally, you said just above your second to last paragraph: "So where's that leave my voice on the ballot? Random background noise." Then, in your second to last paragraph itself, you said: "No, my voice matters just as much as anyone who voted's." There's absolutely no logic here; action (and voting is a form of action) gets shit done, arguing does not (except for maybe awareness, and it might help entrench people in their views further). You have a job, and you pay taxes? Good for you I guess. So do I. So do the majority of other Americans living here today. Again, we don't care. That doesn't matter. If you don't contribute anything to our government by actively participating in the democratic institutions that literally run our government and our country, which you absolutely did not this election, then your voice and your opinions are meaningless. Again, democracy works off a basic principle: you get out of it what you put in. If you don't contribute anything worthwhile, then you don't get anything worthwhile out of it. If you don't participate, then you aren't going to be included. Etc. Again, this is not difficult to understand. You're going to be apathetic one way or the other, regardless of what we try and offer you and encourage in you. That's the thing about apathy and laziness: it's very difficult to stir people out of, regardless of the candidate you're fielding. Having said that, I wish they would've run Sanders over Clinton. However, that wouldn't change the fact that politically-apathetic people are going to remain politically-apathetic. If they don't feel like contributing anything, then they're not going to. If they don't care about politics enough now to participate, they probably aren't in the future either-- unless their personal interests start being drastically impacted. I really don't care anymore, you had every opportunity to vote and participate but chose not to. You can try and hock the blame on every other external force under the sun if you want, but the fact is you had the chance and chose not to. That's nobody's fault but your own. It's disgusting behavior though, considering how many people there are living in this country today who suffer genuine disenfranchisement and aren't allowed to participate in our democracy yet who dearly want to. Also, there's no need to pander specifically to you. If you're politically-apathetic, odds are nothing's going to change that. Again, politically-apathetic people tend not to take an interest in politics until politics starts directly affecting their lives (usually in a negative way) and they start getting desperate for answers/alleviation/whatever. Whatever I guess. Like I said before, the rest of us will just move on into the future-- totally indifferent to you. If you care to join in, you can whenever. We'll be happy to listen when you do.

[QUOTE=Oizen;51433068]Surpised they're only recounting states Clinton didn't win. I have a hunch if they recounted states with more lax voting rules, enough illegal votes might actually be purged to cost her the popular vote. All just a hunch though.[/QUOTE] "she riggged it, just not hard enough" do you people even fucking try listening to yourselves?

I still don't understand how people can think illegals are able to vote. Like, you need to register to vote in every single state and the state [B]will[/B] have records of your citizenship. Especially in Democrat controlled states like NJ, where you need to fill out a form with your name, address, driver license or state ID info, etc. By signing the form you confirm that you are indeed a US citizen, have resided in the state and county of residence for at least 30 thirty days before the next election among other restrictions. Then you get a voter ID card mailed back to you to show at the polling station on election day as they look up your info in their books before you can actually vote. If someone is an illegal and trying to register they'll get hit so fucking hard by the courts it will send them back in time. Again, that is a Democratic controlled state and our Democrats love trying to control every facet of our life here as far as regulating arcade games of all things and fucking us over whenever they mess things up.

[QUOTE=Govna;51436168][i]You[/i] don't understand: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement[/url] Razzums isn't disenfranchised. TestECull isn't either. That's especially true in the national election for president; your vote as far as the popular vote is concerned still counts, and that's true now more than ever before what with Clinton taking a 2+ million lead over Trump. She was the preferred candidate. Any additional votes she could've received would've helped boost her even higher. Alienation is not a valid explanation, nor is it an excuse, in their situations. If you still have the ability to vote but you choose not to because of some absurd persecution complex, then that's still on you. You had the opportunity to contribute something, it takes minimal effort to participate and make that contribution, but you still chose not to. Nobody else is to blame but yourself. The article you linked to on the psychology of disenfranchisement is about the theory of an author and marketing ROI researcher; it's applied to marketing and advertising-- not political theory.[/QUOTE] did u really just link to the wikipedia page for disenfranchisement after I explained my usage. do u not comprehend that words have multiple definitions and i linked to an example of how it can be used elsewhere. did u intentionally take it out of context as if it invalidates what i said???? u are debating concepts u dont even grasp with 0 percent chill and 100 percent contempt for others. not getting roped in further, congrats on being unable to talk about or understand concepts like a normal rational person.

[media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/802972944532209664[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/802973848022847489[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/802975667197386752[/media] This isn't even all of them.

Fucking lol, the amount of voter fraud is like less than a percent. And he shouldnt be talking shit considering they have caught his supporters doing said fraud and posting outside polls with guns in tow saying they should vote trump.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51436613] This isn't even all of them.[/QUOTE] Someone pointed it out in an earlier post, and now seeing Trump jump on the topic too, where are these figures that can state there were cases of "millions of undocumented illegal votes for Clinton"? Like I'm sure there is a chance there are a few fraudulent votes here and there for all the candidates in the election, but [I]millions[/I]? You'd need some figures, statistics, or proof to make a claim like that. When I registered in MS, it asked for a lot of information that'd prove I was a citizen. Such as my address, and I believe license number(if applicable) and I also believe social security number as well. So doesn't that sort of counter [I]millions[/I] of illegal votes? I don't know, it just annoys the fuck out of me when I see people pull that argument out of their ass cause there isn't any proof of it and it seems sort of impossible in my opinion, unless some states do their applications entirely differently. Especially annoying to see our future president be this uneducated in the voting process, and would rather pull numbers out of his ass then to admit he lost the popular vote.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;51436684]Someone pointed it out in an earlier post, and now seeing Trump jump on the topic too, where are these figures that can state there were cases of "millions of undocumented illegal votes for Clinton"? Like I'm sure there is a chance there are a few fraudulent votes here and there for all the candidates in the election, but [I]millions[/I]? You'd need some figures, statistics, or proof to make a claim like that. When I registered in MS, it asked for a lot of information that'd prove I was a citizen. Such as my address, and I believe license number(if applicable) and I also believe social security number as well. So doesn't that sort of counter [I]millions[/I] of illegal votes? I don't know, it just annoys the fuck out of me when I see people pull that argument out of their ass cause there isn't any proof of it and it seems sort of impossible in my opinion, unless some states do their applications entirely differently. Especially annoying to see our future president be this uneducated in the voting process, and would rather pull numbers out of his ass then to admit he lost the popular vote.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if it's applicable but there is an alternative to SSN for noncitizens and I believe Donald was also also referring to dead people (ie person actually died 20 years ago but a vote was cast in their name, which does actually happen) and other kinds of voter fraud.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51436757]I'm not sure if it's applicable but there is an alternative to SSN for noncitizens and I believe Donald was also also referring to dead people (ie person actually died 20 years ago but a vote was cast in their name, which does actually happen) and other kinds of voter fraud.[/QUOTE] True, I did forget people could also cast under dead peoples identities. I still think that the percentage of those kinds illegal votes would be incredibly low, far lower then "millions"

[QUOTE=Rocko's;51435221]Shame that even the president elect doesn't understand conceding isn't legally binding and what not. I'm betting he'd have been calling recounts left in right if he lost, don't get why he's shittalking on twitter about it.[/QUOTE] Because you can totally undo a surrender lmao

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51436757]I'm not sure if it's applicable but there is an alternative to SSN for noncitizens and I believe Donald was also also referring to dead people (ie person actually died 20 years ago but a vote was cast in their name, which does actually happen) and other kinds of voter fraud.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure he means illegal immigrants voting that counts as the "millions of illegal votes", which is false.

[QUOTE=wystan;51436786]Because you can totally undo a surrender lmao[/QUOTE] why am I certain that if the roles were reversed, you'd be doing anything and everything you can to remind everyone of the fact that a concession isn't a legally binding deal.

[QUOTE=wystan;51436786]Because you can totally undo a surrender lmao[/QUOTE] If there is a chance in hell that Clinton manages to win by these recounts, which is a pretty rare circumstance, then yes she can undo a surrender. Her concession was not legally binding, she simply said "fairs fair you won congratulations on becoming president elect".

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51436793]why am I certain that if the roles were reversed, you'd be doing anything and everything you can to remind everyone of the fact that a concession isn't a legally binding deal.[/QUOTE] But that isn't the reality is it? You can try and play pretend as if things went that way. But it seems some of y'all don't fully understand what a concession is, sure it isn't a legally binding act, but she [I]quit[/I], she lost and she knew it, way before this whole kerfuffle happened. Asking for a recount is fine, everyone has the right the know the truth, but the Clinton Camp is approaching BernieBro tier delusion at this point.

A concession is NOT legally binding. She's still in the race and the Electoral College can still elect her.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51436793]why am I certain that if the roles were reversed, you'd be doing anything and everything you can to remind everyone of the fact that a concession isn't a legally binding deal.[/QUOTE] Why am I not surprised you are STILL making assumptions to try and push your own invalid points.

[QUOTE=wystan;51436810]But that isn't the reality is it? You can try and play pretend as if things went that way. But it seems some of y'all don't fully understand what a concession is, sure it isn't a legally binding act, but she [I]quit[/I], she lost and she knew it, way before this whole kerfuffle happened. Asking for a recount is fine, everyone has the right the know the truth, but the Clinton Camp is approaching BernieBro tier delusion at this point.[/QUOTE] Boy I wonder where you'd be right now if this was Trump fighting for a recount. It's obvious she said "I lost, congratulations Trump!" but, if there is a bloody chance in the world she wins by a recount, she can still become president-elect. The concession is simply courtesy, it's to give congratulations to your opponent for winning a fair fight. It's not like she sat down and signed a legally binding form saying "You quit! Your run is done permanently, if there was an error in the votes and you won, you still may not become president-elect."

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51436789]I'm fairly sure he means illegal immigrants voting that counts as the "millions of illegal votes", which is false.[/QUOTE] maybe! as with everything out of his mouth you can interpret it 10 different ways lol

Trump does make a point with the popular vote; it's not democratically efficient when you can just campaign in California, New York etc. and immediately begin to represent an entire country of people who may not have voted for you. [QUOTE=Rocko's;51436684]Someone pointed it out in an earlier post, and now seeing Trump jump on the topic too, where are these figures that can state there were cases of "millions of undocumented illegal votes for Clinton"? Like I'm sure there is a chance there are a few fraudulent votes here and there for all the candidates in the election, but [I]millions[/I]? You'd need some figures, statistics, or proof to make a claim like that. When I registered in MS, it asked for a lot of information that'd prove I was a citizen. Such as my address, and I believe license number(if applicable) and I also believe social security number as well. So doesn't that sort of counter [I]millions[/I] of illegal votes? I don't know, it just annoys the fuck out of me when I see people pull that argument out of their ass cause there isn't any proof of it and it seems sort of impossible in my opinion, unless some states do their applications entirely differently. Especially annoying to see our future president be this uneducated in the voting process, and would rather pull numbers out of his ass then to admit he lost the popular vote.[/QUOTE] I think he was hinting at the kind of thing investigated in the Veritas videos where some organization was accused of "bussing in" voters for some fifty-odd years to fuck with the totals. I live in a swing state that narrowly went red this cycle and you can vote with absolutely zero identification here so long as you bring a verified buddy who can vouch for you. Imagine doing that with a few different people in polling places across the state throughout the day. It'd be sneaky and hard, but far from impossible for a concerted organization with a lot of money to pull off. Now I don't know if that's the case in every state, but if that kind of operation could be followed through with, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out to be some one or two million fraudulent votes across the nation. That said, I do think that Trump should probably just butt out of this entire conversation for once until the recount is done, unless some more marketable evidence of wide-spread fraud comes out.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;51436833]Why am I not surprised you are STILL making assumptions to try and push your own invalid points.[/QUOTE] Considering Wystan essentially said "well yeah I would, but it isn't happening" confirms what they said right there. This is real rich coming from yourself.

[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51437018]Considering Wystan essentially said "well yeah I would, but it isn't happening" confirms what they said right there. This is real rich coming from yourself.[/QUOTE] 1. Point me in the direction where he said this. 2. Point me in the direction where I have made an assumption about someones political beliefs to push my own opinion. Go on, I'll wait.