Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

(This post is here to show I read Frumple's post #1392 and disagreed with it. No reason will be given)

[Frumple]

... it'd be nice to know what part you were disagreeing with, but a'ight.

[mainiac]

It's really easy to spot problems with elections if you are in a free country.  The problem is that people cried wolf so many times that no we are worried about needing an objective standard.  You dont.  Just look at people who never cry wolf and ask them what they think.

[BFEL]

but it's damn worrying that the Dems might screw up Hillary's coronation.

Personally I'm far more worried about them succeeding in shoehorning that crooked rotten bitch down our throats. But hey if you like letting mass murderers run your country then that's your choice I guess.

[RedKing]

I think you've been drinking too much of your mother's kool-aid. Mass murderer?

+1


I mean, I think I can safely say I'm not in her fan club. But for reals?

[smjjames]

I think you've been drinking too much of your mother's kool-aid. Mass murderer?

Benghazi, drones, failed foriegn policy, etc. According to the Republicans.

Also, the counter choice to to your mass murderer is a xenophobic, racist, megalomaniac, authoritarian, narcissisic, demagoguing, bigot.

But yeah, as Red King said, mass murderer seems a bit much.

[RedKing]

Culpability for drone strikes and failed foreign policy would seem to rest more with the President than SecState.

[smjjames]

Culpability for drone strikes and failed foreign policy would seem to rest more with the President than SecState.

And to the republicans, she is little more than an Obama clone.

[Frumple]

Man, you must have a lot of confidence that trump will take a massive dump on the constitution and our legal system if he gets elected...

[mainiac]

I mean, I think I can safely say I'm not in her fan club.

I'm calling bullshit.  You are way to passionate for someone who isn't hopelessly in love.  I'm sorry Clinton-senpai will never notice you.  Feels bad, Jake.

[sluissa]

How will you detect rigging if you don't have observers?

Normally? It's not like these things are particularly closed door, most of the time. They're generally, y'know. Televised live, from multiple angles and often illicitly, too, these days. Actual ground vote stuff is generally handled by the local election whatsit folks, too, rather than specifically chosen members of the party.

There usually isn't specific election monitors (for the primaries, at least... think they get a bit more involved in the general, but there's a fair amount of opposition to them in the US, so...), but there is still a lot of folks involved, many of which don't really have much reason to rig things and even less to keep mum if they notice it happening. Makes it relatively difficult to get away with stuff. Not impossible, but about as good as you'll get without actually having specific organizations dedicated to keeping an eye on that thing (more, since it's not like there's no interaction at all) involved. And even that doesn't exactly remove the possibility of some sort of corruption. Just adds another layer of people that'd need to be subverted. Which is kinda' desirable, because the more effort it is the less likely someone's going to invest that effort into it, but still. It's not like the folks involved with this actually particularly need to rig the votes to get the outcomes the party's pretty happy with.

Your reasoning is funny. We're just to trust that "Well, some people might be watching, maybe even people that aren't supposed to." and "It's too much effort." to prevent election fraud. And for some reason those facts mean that extra people watching specifically for fraud would be worse for some reason.

[TempAcc]

Now, here's the super seekrit plan that the dems have to get going before the actual election: try to say anything about islamic terrorism that doesn't come out as incredibly lazy, canned and disabled.

Sure, Trump may be an asshole, but terrorism has always been a pretty big deal in 'muricaland. Nowadays, its an even bigger deal. Nobody can deny this.

Trump, of course, not being a blind mole, took advantage of this and reaffirmed his promisses of fighting terrorism. His approval ratings rise as a result, to the point even CNN can't deny it.
Meanwhile both hurrlary and bern have only been keeping the canned default democrat sanctioned response to anything regarding islamic terrorism^tm, which always consists of ye olde prattle of saying they're cool with islam while not actualy ever tackling the issue of terrorism (god forbid saying anything about benghazi).

I mean, what can anyone expect to happen, apart from Trump rising in popularity while Hillary seems to become more desperate? Whats worse, the dems are attacking Trump now more than ever (and they already attacked him a fair bit), exactly at the time the voterbase seems to be growing more fond of him, while not tackling any major issues (or at least, not in a way that becomes very evident the biggest media outlets, which is very surprising, since the huge majority of them are supportive of democrats) which could make things swing in favor of them.

The dems seem to be doing exactly the contrary of what they want. With their current strat they're just making Trump seem better both to 'murica and the world at large (at least with people that don't buy the ~trump is literally hitler~ talk, which is frankly more cartoonish than Trump himself). Its like they're trying to destroy a statue lightly rubbing it with a soft cloth, only to end up making it look better.

[Frumple]

Your reasoning is funny. We're just to trust that "Well, some people might be watching, maybe even people that aren't supposed to." and "It's too much effort." to prevent election fraud. And for some reason those facts mean that extra people watching specifically for fraud would be worse for some reason.

... how the hell did you come to any of those conclusions from what I typed?

Just... maybe reread a little more carefully. I said none of that. I'm not even sure how you could get that reasoning out of what you quoted...

Pretty much the entirety of that quoted bit was just noting (some of) how rigging is detected when there's not dedicated observers. There was nothing about it being 100% sufficient (there was, in fact, the exact opposite noted), nor about things somehow being worse when third party observers exist (How the zog did you even get that to begin with? The quoted bit specifically said that third party observers make it harder to get away with corruption.).

I would say in supplement to that that I do believe the state of things renders most kinds of fraud to be not enough of an issue to actually change much, if anything, in regards to vote results, but I'd be plenty happy if we actually had dedicated observer groups, too. Something more sensible than voice votes would be nice, too, among various other things.

[mainiac]

Trump, of course, not being a blind mole, took advantage of this and reaffirmed his promisses of fighting terrorism. His approval ratings rise as a result, to the point even CNN can't deny it.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

[BFEL]

I think you've been drinking too much of your mother's kool-aid. Mass murderer? She's not Kissinger, sheesh.

Eh, hyperbole perhaps, but she does so much sketchy shit that frankly the rumors about her having people assassinated and shit start sounding less and less insane.

If nothing else she's at least a fucking thief:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psPUpnycllEOLCxPnWWgzqd-FVvFas3F-i5UPO6uZq8/edit?pref=2&pli=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

Also, the counter choice to to your mass murderer is a xenophobic, racist, megalomaniac, authoritarian, narcissisic, demagoguing, bigot.

Even *IF* he were all those things he's at least someone that the fucking Oligarchy running the country doesn't want.
My support of him is mainly that him being elected would in and of itself be enough of a punch in the face of the establishment to maybe get them to reform themselves a bit.

If he turns out to do some things helpful to the country in office? That's just gravy.