Re: History repeats ... because the lesson was not learned.
Regarding voter fraud/suppression it looks like fraud happened in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin where the exit polling and reported counting differed by too large an amount. In every one of these cases Clinton should have won and thus garnered 305 EC votes. Perhaps Trump was right - it was rigged, but for himself:
quote:We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens, tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
Of course the article cites no evidence. Just quotes a wingnut saying that he determined from his analysis that 3 million people voted illegally.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
I note that xongsmith wasn't lectured about giving nothing but a bare link as I did.
I agree with NN that sometimes people believe what they want to believe. Seems to me that could be said about many here.
I'd like to find better evidence for that 3 million illegals but there is so much deception of every kind discoverable on the Democrat side and so little or none on the Republican side, (there are all kinds of lies floating around about pro-Trump people attacking Hillary people, but there is not one iota of evidence for any of that, whereas there is lots of video evidence of violent attacks by the Left against Trump people) for this particular election anyway, because of all the obvious lies from the Left, I don't have a big problem accepting such statements. They also say that although that many illegals voted it's possible they didn't all vote for Hillary.
But I agree, it would be nice to have more direct evidence. I was, of course watching alternative media reports on election night, such as Infowars, where from time to time they mentioned telltale signs of voter fraud at various locations. Alex Jones believed Hillary was going to win, until the very last minute when he saw she hadn't, and he thought it would be because of voter fraud because of what Bev Harris had told him in the interview embedded below. Of course if you were watching the MSM you wouldn't have heard a peep about fraud, oh the poor sad MSM who were shocked at the legitimate results of this election because of their silly blind prejudiced certainty that Trump couldn't win. I guess they believe all the lies about how he's racist and fascist and sexist and all the rest of the PC lies, which apparently you all believe here too. Fact is there is nothing at all racist or xenophobic in anything he said.
Anyway here's some evidence from voter fraud expert Bev Harris. Mostly it's about how the votes are easy to manipulate, though there's enough info to indicate it was the Hillary side doing the rigging. I'd try to explain it myself but I don't understand it well enough to do that: It's all about assigning a fraction to each vote rather than a whole number.
It would be nice to have more direct evidence about the election itself. I'm praying for it.
1) Alex Jones interview of Beverly Harris, October 31, 2016: She explains the technology of mass voter fraud by manipulating the results from a centralized computer; says later in the interview that it appears things are already rigged for Hillary. She's not partisan herself and she's very credible.
OH, there's also a series of videos at YouTube by Veritas Project showing undercover interviews with Democrat riggers of elections by different means than the technology.
By the way, xongsmith's info has fraud against Clinton in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, both states where fraud was reported against Trump in reports I heard. Since it can't be both ways and the Dems have been behind all the KNOWN lies about this election I'm going to assume his info is also fraudulent. It's not that Republicans couldn't do such things, but there is absolutely no evidence that they did any of it in this election. And besides, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Lying scheming manipulating Radicals is used by the Left, while the Right despises such undemocratic third-world evil lying fraud and in this election the ones I've been following are on the side of LIBERTY and DEMOCRACY and HONESTY. It would be nice if some of you might eventually take the blinders off.
Alex Jones is not a source. He is lying to you. Quite literally lying to you. Whatever information you acquire from Alex Jones, you should automatically assume it is false.
quote:She explains the technology of mass voter fraud by manipulating the results from a centralized computer
That's not voter fraud. That's election fraud.
Voter fraud is when a person votes for someone else or votes more than once.
Election fraud is interference in the election such as through voter suppression, disenfranchisement, vote buying, misinformation, destruction of ballots, or alteration of votes or vote tallies.
You'll notice that it is the Republicans who have been engaging in election fraud through such Voter ID laws, purging of voter roles, Trump's lawsuit regarding early voters in Nevada, etc., etc.
From 2000 to 2014, there have been more than a billion votes cast in the US.
And there have been only 38 instances of voter fraud.
Most of them carried out by Republicans.
And the only "foreigner" voting was a Frenchman (not someone from south of the border)...who was voting for the Republican.
quote:OH, there's also a series of videos at YouTube by Veritas Project
Stop right there.
First, it's "Project Veritas" ("Veritas Project" is a science fiction book).
Second, Project Veritas is run by James O'Keefe, a known fraud who has been arrested and convicted for his attempts to commit felonies and pin them on others. All his attempts to "expose" things have backfired: Every single organization has been shown to be on the up-and-up and his attempts to solicit illegal activities have only shown him to be the actual person who needs to be in jail.
He is lying to you. Quite literally lying to you. Whenever he tells you something, you need to start from the position that he is not telling the truth.
He is not a source.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Re: Some evidence of voter fraud, election fraud, disruption of Trump rallies etc.
As usual here, the responses are all unrelated to the information, and basically it's all character assassination. Watch Alex Jones' interview, the information isn't coming from him, it's coming from Bev Harris who is the investigator. OK so I should call it election fraud rather than voter fraud but the point is it's the votes that are manipulated from the central computer. Harris got the information from a Tennessee man, Benny Smith I think is his name, who discovered how mass fraud would be possible by assigning a fraction to each vote rather than a whole number so that all the votes for a particular candidate could be easily manipulated en masse from this central computer. I'm sure many here will understand the method better than I do if you just listen to Harris describe it. She also says her information shows it's been manipulated for Hillary and against Trump.
As for voter fraud, bussing in illegals or others, registering dead people to vote and that sort of thing, that gets revealed in the Project Veritas series.
Here is the first one in that series, which happens to be about how they infiltrated Trump rallies to provoke violence. Again the information doesn't come from the maker of the series, it comes from the Dem ooperatives themselves, it's their faces and their voices being picked up by hidden surveillance.
Benny Smith I think is his name, who discovered how mass fraud would be possible by assigning a fraction to each vote rather than a whole number so that all the votes for a particular candidate could be easily manipulated en masse from this central computer.
Indeed, a point of liberal outrage for the last dozen years (the daily show ran a bit on the security issues with Diebold machines specifically and electronic voting generally back in 2004, when it was first in the news). I'm glad you agree.
She also says her information shows it's been manipulated for Hillary and against Trump.
I remember when liberals were complaining about them and part of our method of persuading the conservatives was to say that one day it might not be the Republicans that have the most power to manipulate electronic voting. You should have listened in 2004 rather than dismissing or mocking liberals for being sore losers. Still - the rightmost conservatives have now got another shot at having 4 years to fix it. I'm sure Trump, should he have more power to manipulate votes, will not do as others are feared to have done, and keep that power to secure a second term and then to extend the party tenure.
Indeed, a point of liberal outrage for the last dozen years (the daily show ran a bit on the security issues with Diebold machines specifically and electronic voting generally back in 2004, when it was first in the news). I'm glad you agree.
Indeed indeed, and instead of fixing the problem the DNC etc learned how to do it, and they've added it to their bag of tricks, because heaven forfend we should have fair elections.
To my mind there are two outcomes from this election that could be beneficial:
(1) voter reforms so that voter and election fraud are minimized. This would include paper ballots that can be recounted, and some kind of coding system to allow voters to check their votes were properly recorded. It could also include ranked voting so that we reach a consensus on who is elected rather than polarized war-camps.
(2) reform of the democrat party to discard the neo-liberal platforms that cater to corporations and return to progressive platforms that represent the people. Without that there is no hope for respite in the coming years. The people have rejected status quo politics, both left and right, do the first party to wake up to this will gain more.
If we can implement Instant Runoff Voting then the parties will be de-facto revised because voters will have more options within and outside the parties.
Make all states proportional electoral college votes and run the instant runoff evaluations at the electoral college.
It occurs to me that maybe you and dronestar don't fully understand what Clinton voted for.
[Hyroglyphx]
It's not a question of what she voted for, but what she demonstrates that she will vote for. She wants to control Syria as a No-Fly Zone, to which the Chiefs of Staff have already expressed would require commitment to open warfare with both Russia and Syria. It is also based on her dealings with Libya and Syria thus far as her role as Secretary.
[nwr]
As for her role in Syria as secretary of state: she had no ability to commit any troops. She could only make recommendations to the president. Any decision to commit troops would have been the president's.
[Hyroglyphx] That's only because the public made it so abundantly clear that we don't want to get dragged in to yet another quagmire of endless wars, such as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President was even reluctant to wage a small air campaign against ISIL based on such a negative response of the American people.
In half of her speeches during her push for the presidency, she threatened to engage Russia with an diplomatic, economic, and military response... That's pretty provocative given the fact that both Russia and NATO have been saber-rattling for the last year with these massive military drills.
Earlier nwr made it sound like Hillary has no record of support for attacks on Iraq. (I don't feel like chasing down the exact post that load can be found in) I remember the Bill Clinton presidency from 1993-2001 very well. Iraq was bombed constantly. Remember Christmas of 1998 (or 1997)?
More to the present though. Like Syria.
As for Syria, we were about to attack Assad until an education campaign changed things. In the U.K. the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition had enough of a split over the war that their support for a war campaign against Syria needed Labor votes, which seemed to be very much there AT FIRST. Labor members were educated in the coming weeks by anti-war folks, and at the last minute (before a vote for war) the huge bulk of the minority Labor party choose to oppose the war. The House of Commons vote was pulled once the supporters for war became a sudden minority.
That gave the anti-war movement a shot in the arm in the U.S. congress to oppose the Clinton/Kerry war push. In the House Republicans like John Culberson (Houston) and Democrats like Alan Grayson (Orlando) were able to defeat the pro war push.
Btw your comments on Clinton have been somewhat/fairly accurate. She lost the election and she was about the only Democrat that could have lost to Trump. The fact that she lost to Trump proves that ANY GOP candidate would have beaten her. I'm just glad it wasn't a neo-con like Rubio or Fiorina. Trump is light years better, in fact he is about the best deal the country could hope to get considering the fact that the DNC made it a "it is (was)Hillary's turn alone to run in 2016 for the Democrats" type of election.
I certainly think that the instant runoff and electoral college themes deserve more discussion, but I think it would be poor to bury such in this topic.
Most people's inclinations lean toward compromise and accommodation, but this stands at odds with the lessons of history, and with the lessons of a recent weekend evening, which I expect are a "writ small" version of what will be our future. As is his habit, Trump struck out at those who would dare criticize he and his at the conclusion of a performance of "Hamilton" (‘Hamilton’ Cast’s Appeal to Pence Ignites Showdown With Trump).
The lesson of history is that one must stand up to bullies. One must stand up to them early and often, else at some point one will be staring up in confused bewilderment at a face of contorted hate and anger while fending off jackbooted kicks. The LGBT, Black and Muslim communities already understand this, but that's only where it starts, because it must always start somewhere. Before long the rest of the nation becomes corralled into helping carry out the discriminative and destructive policies that become more and more extreme and that at some point begin transforming beyond the country's borders into campaigns of aggression.
Germany didn't stand up to Hitler when he began discriminating against Jews. After all, Hitler did have grievances, and who couldn't understand that. And the world didn't stand up to Hitler when he began taking the Sudetanland and Austria and Czechoslovakia. After all, Hitler did have grievances. And then Hitler took Poland and France, and by then it was too late.
Trump has his own "grievances." There are always grievances. The lesson of history in combatting men settling grienvances is to stand up to them early and often and now, and so it must be with Trump. He may not have a grand plan in the form of a Mein Kampf, but he's capable of carrying it out all the same.
A week or so ago I said that I stood behind Trump because he won the election fair and square and deserved to be given a chance to carry out his vision. I've reconsidered. I'm still opposed to the "#NotMyPresident" movement, but only because it should be a "#NotAPresident" movement. Trump isn't a leader, he's a bully with a small and mean-spirited agenda of hate and exclusion. He should not be head of the nation and by the nature of our power of the free world, and we should guide our actions to deny him this role at every turn. We must fight him in the streets, we must fight him on the beaches, we must fight him in the halls of Congress, and yes, we must even fight him in the theaters.*
™ Version 4.2
