Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@Baldimo,

So that county has 1,300 voting places with perhaps 5 or more machines per place. That's at least 1,300 times 5, or at least 6,500 machines. It could be double or more that number. And you think inspecting 20 machines out of the whole county is an adequate check for that?

That's assuming, of course, the checkers could even detect the bug by a sophisticated system, which we can't count on. We have these small teams of 3 people or so from universities and they have no trouble hacking all these different voting machines, you have to wonder what a whole building of 300 or 400 computer experts could come up with.

You've represented yourself as being in the information field, yet you seem to fall for every amateurish excuse the voting machine defenders come up with. The excuse where they admit the machines can be hacked but it would take more than one person to do it is just ridiculous-the USA is the world's foremost military and economic power, they don't think there are organizations or nations who have the wherewithal to put hundreds of experts on this and execute it? And I haven't seen any response from you about the fact that there really is no computer system that you can guarantee to be non-hackable.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

A Federal Judge rather contemptuously rejected the (very weak) arguments offered by Democrats to "justify" a recount in Pennsylvania. One evident motivation for the judgment was the complete lack of technical evidence supporting the hacking theory. Beyond that nothing much has come out of all the recount business - except of course that reports from Detroit indicate that about 65,000 more votes were cast there than the total number of registered voters. However we are assured by our betters that this **** doesn't happen and that efforts at voter eligibility verification are unneeded and necessarily racist.

To my knowledge the only illegal efforts to corrupt and distort our election process have come from the Clinton campaign in their under the table collusions with the DNC to defeat Sanders in the primary contests and between them and some liberal media outlets to give cantidate Hillary an inside track to some debate questions.

We are just days away from the Electoral college voting which will bring the curtain down on these truly wierd examples of continuing denial and excuse making on the parts of Democrats and committed Hillary supporters in particular. That this **** is still continuing does not speak well for their maturity, rationality and loyalty to anything beyond self-interest.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

To my knowledge the only illegal efforts to corrupt and distort our election process have come from the Clinton campaign in their under the table collusions with the DNC to defeat Sanders in the primary contests and between them and some liberal media outlets to give cantidate Hillary an inside track to some debate questions.

If this is the only collusion of the election, we should not be worried about an in-party corruption.

The end result will be a democrat or republican winner.

The American voters are not that sophisticated.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If this is the only collusion of the election, we should not be worried about an in-party corruption.

Hillary and her cronies basically screwed half the country out of the candidate that the votes were going for. If it hadn't been for the super-delegates, Bernie would have been running against Trump. So yes, the biggest take away from this election is that the Dems will screw over their own base so that they can pick who the candidate is. People such as Blickers are worried about the vote, but she can't see the fraud in her own party.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Hillary and her cronies basically screwed half the country out of the candidate that the votes were going for.

Politics in this country is full of missteps, mis-calculations, and mis-representations. We then have the American voters who are not that informed or sophisticated. Look who most of Trump's supporters are.

Those of us who have kept up with Mr Trump knows he's a scammer, liar, and misogynist. So, we now have a liar, scammer and misogynist as our future president.

The sad thing is, Mr Trump isn't even a good business man. He inherited his money, and declared bankruptcy four times (7 according to some).

The American people voted him in. There's nothing the rest of us can do, but hope for the best.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Politics in this country is full of missteps, mis-calculations, and mis-representations. We then have the American voters who are not that informed or sophisticated. Look who most of Trump's supporters are.

This is your first comment? Hillary and the DNC screwed over DNC voters are you want to talk about people voting for Trump not being informed? How about the Dems and left leaning idiots who voted for someone who stole the primaries in the first place.

If something doesn't change with the DNC soon, they are going to loose in 2018 and 2020.

Quote:

The past several years under Mr. Obama have not been kind to Democrats. When he took office in 2009, Democrats had an effective 58-seat majority in the Senate, had a staggering 256 seats in the House and held 28 governorships.
They lost the House and ceded the majority of governorships in 2010, held serve in 2012 with Mr. Obama’s re-election, then lost control of the Senate in 2014 and control of the White House this year. All told, Democrats have shed 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/obamas-legacy-democratic-losses-party-chaos/

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone apparently believes he is more intelligent and observant than the voters, and that the American people don't know what is good for them as well as does he.

I don't believe the available evidence supports his obviously foolish statements.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

He is a hell of a lot more intelligent than you are.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

A Federal Judge rather contemptuously rejected the (very weak) arguments offered by Democrats to "justify" a recount in Pennsylvania. One evident motivation for the judgment was the complete lack of technical evidence supporting the hacking theory.

Jill Stein was willing to pay for the recount, the money was raised. Nor should someone have to go to a judge and have to come up with prior evidence that cheating has occurred before the recount can start. That's like going to a bank and asking for a record of your deposits and withdrawals in your account, and having the bank say, "No, we don't produce that record, you first have to go to a judge and give evidence that we did not properly record your deposits and withdrawals-only then do we produce the record of your account here."

Oh, by the way, the margin of victory of Trump over Hillary was only 0.78%. Quite a lot states have an automatic recount if the margin of victory is less than 1%. Yet here you are arguing that a recount in Pennsylvania is just the most outrageous thing you ever heard of. But I guess the talking points you're given tell you to say that, so.....

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Hillary and her cronies basically screwed half the country out of the candidate that the votes were going for. If it hadn't been for the super-delegates, Bernie would have been running against Trump.

Seriously guy, learn some American history. For most of the history of this nation, there were NO elected delegates to party conventions at all for the simple fact that there were no primaries at all. In fact, the whole purpose of party conventions was for the state leaders of the party to meet, deal and negotiate who was going to get the Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination. That's why it frequently took many rounds of voting among the party leaders to arrive at a candidate. Once the candidate was arrived at, they had the big celebration with the balloons all being released, etc. That's how it normally worked, and as late as 1968, three quarters of the states had no primaries at all.

But hey, you don't even have to open a history book-we know you hate that-and find out about how the parties can choose their candidate any way they wish. Why, georgeob1 has witnessed many a convention where most of the states don't have primaries and he'll tell you all about it. Really, primaries are a new thing, they are not traditional at all.

PS: In addition to that, you lied when you said that Hillary needed superdelegates to win. Hilary won far more regular elected delegates in primaries than Bernie Sanders did, the count was 2271 for Hillary to 1820 for Bernie. That is elected delegates, not super delegates.

You have become a right wing clone, never letting truth in just putting in your time posting what they tell you to post, and the hell with facts.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Most of them are are not.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Tell your story to the Federal judge who dismissed their request for a recound based on the lack of ANY credible evidence of any irregularity requiring one.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

It shouldn't have to go to a Federal judge. A great many states mandate a recount if the margin of victory is 1% or less, and Trump only beat Hillary by 0.78% in Pennsylvania. Saying that a recount in a close race can only happen if you can convince a Federal judge that cheating has occurred is just like a bank saying you can't have a record of your deposits and withdrawals on your account, you have to first go to a Federal judge and show him that the bank cheated before you get to see your bank statement.

PS: Will you please tell your friend Baldimo that political parties don't need primaries to nominate a candidate? You've seen enough national conventions when most of the states didn't even hold primaries at all, they just sent their party leaders to deal and bargain. Baldimo won't believe me, maybe he'll believe you.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

It`s true. A few decades ago state conventions were the rule, not the exception. Cabdidates of both parties were selected by the grass roots membership of the state parties and their delegates. Delegates were largely selected in each state convention from among local government elected officials and other local party activists. One side effect of this system was that it strengthened the standing organization of the parties in each state. Overall a healthy thing.

An equally important factor was that the primary process was vastly less expensive one than one with separate primary elections in 50 states. Folks complain a lot about the enormous funding required under our current system with 51 elections compared to one, plus the various state preliminary meetings. That more than anythiong else is what drove up the dependency of our democracy on large contriubutors. As with most things in life it is the usually unanticipated side effects that dominate in the long run

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Seriously guy, learn some American history. For most of the history of this nation, there were NO elected delegates to party conventions at all for the simple fact that there were no primaries at all. In fact, the whole purpose of party conventions was for the state leaders of the party to meet, deal and negotiate who was going to get the Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination. That's why it frequently took many rounds of voting among the party leaders to arrive at a candidate. Once the candidate was arrived at, they had the big celebration with the balloons all being released, etc. That's how it normally worked, and as late as 1968, three quarters of the states had no primaries at all.

It doesn't matter how it was done in the past, we never used to elect our Senators, that was done by House, do we move back to that system because it was the way it was done? It's funny how you want talk history, yet you want to ignore the screwing the Dems gave their voters. Free and Fair elections???

Quote:

But hey, you don't even have to open a history book-we know you hate that-and find out about how the parties can choose their candidate any way they wish. Why, georgeob1 has witnessed many a convention where most of the states don't have primaries and he'll tell you all about it. Really, primaries are a new thing, they are not traditional at all.

We have been doing them this way for my entire life. How it was done 50 years ago or more has no bearing on today. I like the idea of picking who is going to run, it seems you only want to be told who to vote for. I'll take my ideal of liberty over yours any day.

Quote:

PS: In addition to that, you lied when you said that Hillary needed superdelegates to win. Hilary won far more regular elected delegates in primaries than Bernie Sanders did, the count was 2271 for Hillary to 1820 for Bernie. That is elected delegates, not super delegates.

I didn't lie, the DNC used the super delegate process to break the will of the Bernie supporters when it was starting to look like Bernie was actually going to make a showing in the primaries. Then there was the collusion between the DNC and the Hillary campaign to make sure Bernie didn't get the nomination. Let us also not forget how Hillary got questions fed to her by Donna Brazile prior to the debates. What's amazing is we wouldn't know any of this if it hadn't been for Wikileaks. The Dem voters have been shown the light, but they continue to huddle in the darkness.

Quote:

You have become a right wing clone, never letting truth in just putting in your time posting what they tell you to post, and the hell with facts.

The last desperate act of someone who can't discuss the facts. Hillary and the DNC screwed their voters and you are ok with that, it's sad really.

My conscious is clear in this election, I voted for Gary Johnson.

1 Reply

Truth
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/925757774145894/

0 Replies

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15665743_1357473624345688_8526265378649856508_n.jpg?oh=9343972e97a4e5762dd399574e86f9c5&oe=58AEE063

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

So did the women who blamed Trump for "assaulting them"...

1 Reply

@Blickers,

No I'm arguing that Pennsylvania and all the other states make their own election laws and they must be respected. Stein and her Soros backers tried to get around provisions in the state law that they found inconvenient. The judge repuked them for precisely that and reject their request. Stein has no a priori "rights" in this area.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Not so much. There are still a number of cases proceeding. Interesting that America's right-wing MSM isn't continuing to cover them - the rest of the world is still covering them.

2 Replies

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know