PDA

View Full Version : election-rigging


phuckphace
October 13th, 2016, 07:28 PM
with the election less than a month away, I figured now would be a good time to discuss the possibility of vote-tampering, hopefully as objectively as possible.

personally I don't think that election fraud in the United States is generally anywhere near as severe as what goes down in some other countries. however, I also believe that given the extremely polarized nature of this election cycle in particular, we could be entering into some uncharted territory.

in previous elections, such as the contested 2000 Bush-Gore election, the incentive for one side to tamper with the outcome was minimal - the stakes weren't high because there was no real ideological difference between the two parties aside from the fake culture-war issues like abortion. the money men who fund campaigns didn't really care either way (Coke vs. Pepsi). Big Business, for example, was well aware that Bush was no more of a threat to their foreign labor pool than Gore. Obama and McCain were basically the same guy with the former having a +100 melanin buff to his stats. in short, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 probably weren't rigged.

this cycle, however, presents a serious threat to the Establishment and they know it. it's why the Left has been in DEFCON 1 damage control mode ever since they realized that the Trump campaign isn't going to go away. after mocking/ignoring Bill Clinton's female rape-accusers for well over a decade, they suddenly remembered that sex scandals are scandalous after all. CNN has been derisively known as the Clinton News Network since Clinton was in office, but not until now have so many CNN thumbs been pressed to the scale. at this point they're not even making half-assed attempts to hide it.

with the dark clouds of Fascism gathering over Weimar 2.0, the possibility of one side having every incentive on Earth to massage the outcome of this election seems to be a foregone conclusion. the depth of the establishment's corruption has already been exposed by WikiLeaks with more coming every day, which categorically establishes both willingness and capability - what comes next is either success or failure.

naturally, "it was rigged!" is something you hear from the losing side in every single election ever, but what will set this election apart from the rest is the "WikiLeaks factor." a legitimate Clinton win is certainly possible and not outside the scope of outcomes that I'd be willing to accept, however given the things we've seen this year that we were never supposed to see, it does make you wonder.

Flapjack
October 14th, 2016, 07:05 AM
I do not think it is an issue, I think Trump is getting his excuses in early and the Republican party is trying to make it more difficult to vote as a lower voter turnout gives them the advantage.

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 02:45 PM
Reminder: The Fox News poll has Trump 7 - 8 points behind.

PlasmaHam
October 14th, 2016, 02:53 PM
Reminder: The Fox News poll has Trump 7 - 8 points behind.

Good point, but things could change, don't count your chickens until they hatch as they say.

I'm not sure how accurate polls could be in an election involving the two most unpopular candidates in history.

I feel that poll-rigging could be a possibility, we did see a couple scares involving it in some primary races.

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 03:18 PM
Good point, but things could change, don't count your chickens until they hatch as they say.
On one hand, in the historical data, there's quite a strong correlation between voter preference in October and the actual result of elections - and it the cases of outliers the difference was much smaller. However, given the tenuous support that Clinton has among her leaning-supporters, I do agree that it wouldn't be right to jump to conclusions: it could take one extra-bad news cycle for it to be reduced to a game of bases - and Trump's base have always been the more enthusiastic.

I'm not sure how accurate polls could be in an election involving the two most unpopular candidates in history.
This causes more noise in the polling data but the bigger issue for Trump is that as support for independents declines closer to the date we are seeing greater numbers calling support for Hillary.

Stronk Serb
October 15th, 2016, 04:34 AM
Poll rigging here happens all the time. Also election results were tampered last parliamentary elections with bribes to vote and a bunch of ballot papers arriving with a side already circled. There were so many discrepancies that the elections should've been repeated. I mean election tampering happens here all the time in the last 25 years, but never on this scale.

Porpoise101
October 15th, 2016, 12:51 PM
I think we have actually improved as a nation when it comes to preventing vote rigging. If you go back to the 1960 election, both Nixon and Kennedy leveraged influence to get more votes. Supposedly in Chicago (Kennedy) and the Bay Area (Nixon) people rose up from their graves to vote. A big part of preventing this rigging was taking down organized crime in the US.

Also, Trump seems pretty far off from victory. Clinton is leading in most of the "battleground" states. I like to use FiveThirtyEight's Election Forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) because it gives a detailed view of states, specific polls, and even has Senate races. It's a pretty useful resource, and I believe the models were only upset in a primary race in which Bernie Sanders beat Clinton. Other than that, it has had an extremely close prediction of presidential races past.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 03:27 PM
It sure is possible, I'd hardly be surprised at all (regardless of how 'tame' this election race could have been).

I disagree though with the 2000 election; from what I have looked at I am pretty confident that Gore was supposed to win, with 'certain things' happening that ended up having Bush get it, but I digress so I shall speak no more of it.

I'm not sure how accurate polls could be in an election involving the two most unpopular candidates in history.

On point!

Uniquemind
October 15th, 2016, 03:44 PM
I don't think there's any tampering, if you are gonna say it's tampered I need to see the command line code used.

Proof or didn't happen.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 03:47 PM
I don't think there's any tampering, if you are gonna say it's tampered I need to see the command line code used.

Proof or didn't happen.

In fairness though, that means that only what you see through most media is what will define the truth for you, as all other things cannot be proven for you through your way.

phuckphace
October 20th, 2016, 06:18 PM
I've seen claims of an upcoming landslide from both sides, and as stated in the other thread I don't think a landslide is very likely. the degree of polarization combined with Trump supporters having the most enthusiasm (c.f. the opposite side seeing voting as more of a tedious errand like to the DMV or WIC office, which has to be done to keep the EBT balance refilled) significant numbers of voters switching parties and higher turnout than previous elections means we could end up with anything.

on the off-chance that a landslide does occur, it would be a refutation of claims from either side that it was fraudulent - ensuring that the outcome is closer gives you a degree of plausible deniability that you wouldn't have if you tried to make it a sweep, and we're not quite Russia just yet. unless the riggers are imbeciles, that is.

I don't think there's any tampering, if you are gonna say it's tampered I need to see the command line code used.

Proof or didn't happen.

that's exactly what WikiLeaks will be around to provide, if it happens.

Paraxiom
October 20th, 2016, 07:57 PM
I am confident that Trump is indirectly fueling a potential set of bad riots if he loses the election, because some of the places he has pontificated election-rigging have electronic voting machines that do not give receipts. It can only add to the whipped-up suspicions of the Trumpians which have been stirred by their leader. The closer the results will be, the worse I predict the riots to be.

Trump is a genius, I can easily give him that.

I guess I'll just stick to the riots-will-happen-anyway view for the rest of the time up to this.

phuckphace
October 21st, 2016, 02:35 PM
the possibility of rioting is there but in my opinion it will be likely more ad hoc than fanned up by Trump, and especially so if Trump loses to what later proves via WikiLeaks to be fraudulent rigging. the reason I say "ad hoc" is because the white middle class is already (justifiably) full of resentment for the status quo, and in the event of a Trump loss it's not as though he would have anything personally to gain from his supporters going Wild West. it's quite true that this recent wave of populism has emboldened many whites who formerly felt alienated and alone in their convictions - this newfound consensus is empowering, you might say. but the fact remains that the erosion of our former hegemon was bound to cause upset eventually, if we want to blame Trump for this in any way we can start with his sudden and unforeseen exposure of America's enemies and getting them fearing for their jobs for the first time in a long time.

I don't want civil war (I don't think hardly anyone does) but it's not very factual to say or insinuate that everything was peaceful and looking up until Trump came along and destroyed everything with his divisive rhetoric. the divisions were already there.

Fourth Estate vs. Fourth Reich

Jthompson
October 22nd, 2016, 01:45 PM
Voter fraud is nearly impossible because of how decentralized our national voting is. It's state by state, county by county. The millions of people you'd have to organize in Order to swing anything in either direction. There have been studies done on voter fraud, and it is TINY, NEGLEGEBLE percentage of voter fraud. It cannot do anytbinf

PlasmaHam
October 24th, 2016, 11:36 PM
Voter fraud is nearly impossible because of how decentralized our national voting is. It's state by state, county by county. The millions of people you'd have to organize in Order to swing anything in either direction. There have been studies done on voter fraud, and it is TINY, NEGLEGEBLE percentage of voter fraud. It cannot do anytbinf

A tiny negligible percentage of voters in Florida determined who would win the 2000 election. Often times the slightest amount can have huge consequences.

I would feel considerably better about this if state voter ID and registration laws were passed. That makes sense, right? Having a confirmation of your identity to help prevent illegal voting. Yet Democrats nationwide have repeatedly pushed against those. And we wonder why...

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 08:08 AM
I would feel considerably better about this if state voter ID and registration laws were passed. That makes sense, right? Having a confirmation of your identity to help prevent illegal voting. Yet Democrats nationwide have repeatedly pushed against those. And we wonder why...

Well voter ID laws are past mostly to prevent black people from voting because its tougher for them to get the ID they need to vote, so the party that is openly racist still has a chance to win. The kind of voting fraud voter ID laws prevent almost never happen.

PlasmaHam
October 25th, 2016, 01:45 PM
Well voter ID laws are past mostly to prevent black people from voting because its tougher for them to get the ID they need to vote, so the party that is openly racist still has a chance to win. The kind of voting fraud voter ID laws prevent almost never happen.
No, voter ID laws are mostly denied to allow for more illegal voting. So the party that is more corrupt and has a greater following among illegal voters has a chance to win. Also, I find it so comical when leftists says a law that applies to everyone is racist, yet laws that supports specific groups are not. You crack me up:D.

I guess blacks are so inferior that they don't know how to get free IDs, going by your logic.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 03:26 PM
No, voter ID laws are mostly denied to allow for more illegal voting. So the party that is more corrupt and has a greater following among illegal voters has a chance to win. Also, I find it so comical when leftists says a law that applies to everyone is racist, yet laws that supports specific groups are not. You crack me up:D.

This will explain it to you. Enjoy :)

rHFOwlMCdto

I guess blacks are so inferior that they don't know how to get free IDs, going by your logic.

That's sounds kinda racist.

Flapjack
October 26th, 2016, 07:50 AM
No, voter ID laws are mostly denied to allow for more illegal voting. So the party that is more corrupt and has a greater following among illegal voters has a chance to win. Also, I find it so comical when leftists says a law that applies to everyone is racist, yet laws that supports specific groups are not. You crack me up:D.
No most voter ID laws are for voter suppression as the Republican party do better when there is a lower turnout. The democrats do it too, reducing the number of polling stations in areas where Bernie was polling well and both parties redraw district lines to unfairly benefit themselves.

I would support voter ID laws if there was evidence to back it up.

Jason Mark
October 26th, 2016, 10:53 AM
You Americans have a strange election this time around. God save the Queen!

Stronk Serb
October 26th, 2016, 12:53 PM
Okay, here for to cast your vote you need to be a citizen, 18 years or more, to be in the voter index and to vote in the vlting district assigned to you. Proof of citizenship is done by prividing your ID at the voting place, you are by law required to have one. That prevents election rigging by dragging foreigners to vote, but there is always vote theft or they steal votes from people who didn't vote.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 01:13 PM
Okay, here for to cast your vote you need to be a citizen, 18 years or more, to be in the voter index and to vote in the vlting district assigned to you. Proof of citizenship is done by prividing your ID at the voting place, you are by law required to have one. That prevents election rigging by dragging foreigners to vote, but there is always vote theft or they steal votes from people who didn't vote.

Unless the ID is your passport it doesn't prove you are a citizen.

Stronk Serb
October 26th, 2016, 01:48 PM
Unless the ID is your passport it doesn't prove you are a citizen.

Here it does. You need proof of citizenship to get your ID.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 02:11 PM
Here it does. You need proof of citizenship to get your ID.

What about permanent residents?

PlasmaHam
October 26th, 2016, 03:46 PM
What about permanent residents?

Permanent residents, unless they are citizens, cannot vote in National elections, like the presidency. So I don't see the point of your question here.

Proof of citizenship in the USA can include:


Birth Certificate
Passport
Certificate of Citizenship
Naturalization Certificate

The government should have a record of all these, so you should be able to get access to whichever applies to you with minimal hassle, if you lost or damaged your original proof.


Source (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/A4en.pdf)

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 03:52 PM
Permanent residents, unless they are citizens, cannot vote in National elections, like the presidency. So I don't see the point of your question here.

Thats the point they can't vote but they still can get IDs

PlasmaHam
October 26th, 2016, 04:05 PM
Thats the point they can't vote but they still can get IDs

The states are the ones who handle voter ID, and I will admit that some of them do have lacking regulation, but permanent resident voting is not the big issue with USA voter scams. There is cross-state voting, which ID laws almost entirely prevent, as proof of state residency is typically needed for IDs.

Also, you seem to be having contradictory stances on the access of voter IDs. First you were arguing that IDs are so hard to attain that black people can't get them. Now you are arguing that IDs are so easy to attain that illegal voters can attain them.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 06:44 PM
The states are the ones who handle voter ID, and I will admit that some of them do have lacking regulation, but permanent resident voting is not the big issue with USA voter scams. There is cross-state voting, which ID laws almost entirely prevent, as proof of state residency is typically needed for IDs.

Also, you seem to be having contradictory stances on the access of voter IDs. First you were arguing that IDs are so hard to attain that black people can't get them. Now you are arguing that IDs are so easy to attain that illegal voters can attain them.

The IDs required to vote are hard to get and such laws are to suppress voting rights of mostly black people and other minorities.

Stronk Serb was saying that showing an ID would prove that you are a citizen and that you are allowed to vote, but the IDs you need to show when voting are also owned by permanent residents who cannot vote.

Abyssal Echo
October 26th, 2016, 08:47 PM
Everyone seems to be looking at the voter/ voter ID laws and requirements and over looking the obvious.
yup the electronic voting machine which can be programmed to produce whatever results that the programmer wants it to. I saw an article earlier that stated Texas is replacing the electronic machines with paper ballots because of this problem. I also saw another article that stated that Soros company provided voting machines to 16 U.S. states. We all know which candidate Soros is supporting. I'll look for the articles and post a link.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 10:39 PM
Everyone seems to be looking at the voter/ voter ID laws and requirements and over looking the obvious.
yup the electronic voting machine which can be programmed to produce whatever results that the programmer wants it to. I saw an article earlier that stated Texas is replacing the electronic machines with paper ballots because of this problem. I also saw another article that stated that Soros company provided voting machines to 16 U.S. states. We all know which candidate Soros is supporting. I'll look for the articles and post a link.

PlasmaHam Instead of trying to suppress voting rights of minorities so Trump as a chance to become the next fuhrer, everyone should focus on the real problem, these voting machines

Stronk Serb
October 27th, 2016, 02:24 AM
What about permanent residents?

Okay, I just checked my ID card and regulations. Foreigners get an ID too but a differend one and accordinvg to a different law also their ID is valid for two years, for a citizen it's 5 if under 18 or 10 if over 18, also foreignwrs do not have their JBMG which every citizen here has. Also if a foreigner tried to vote, he would get kicked out because he is not on the list of eligible voters (a citizen older than 18). In my voting district we had ID checks and with our JMBG (Jedinstveni matični broj građana- Unique number of citizen), they check on the list and you vote. Also there is no voter fraud because you are assigned the voting district closest to your reported place of residence, if abroad you can vote at your closest diplomatic mission of the Republic of Serbia. Truth is, our system is impregnable to voter fraud, but it is highly susceptable to tampering by vote theft and having dead people and people who didn't vote come and cast their vote for the ruling party. Also there were reports of ballot scams, ballots with a pre-cast vote or ballots added after the voting ended.

Vlerchan
October 28th, 2016, 05:13 PM
Trump supporter - Terri Lynn Rot - arrested for voter fraud in Iowa.

---

Reminder: Poorer people are also less likely to have banking accounts than richer people.

phuckphace
October 28th, 2016, 09:19 PM
Trump supporter - Terri Lynn Rot - arrested for voter fraud in Iowa.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

what a cunt. I would rather she stay in the slammer for 5 years minimum but according to Google she was released on a $5000 bond

PlasmaHam
October 29th, 2016, 10:19 AM
PlasmaHam Instead of trying to suppress voting rights of minorities so Trump as a chance to become the next fuhrer, everyone should focus on the real problem, these voting machines

Ah, calling me a racist, didn't expect too much better from you.

mattsmith48
October 29th, 2016, 10:47 AM
Ah, calling me a racist, didn't expect too much better from you.

I didn't call you a racist, but some of things you post sound kinda racist, plus having the confederate flag as your profil picture certainly doesn't help your case.

Porpoise101
October 29th, 2016, 04:21 PM
Everyone seems to be looking at the voter/ voter ID laws and requirements and over looking the obvious.
yup the electronic voting machine which can be programmed to produce whatever results that the programmer wants it to. I saw an article earlier that stated Texas is replacing the electronic machines with paper ballots because of this problem. I also saw another article that stated that Soros company provided voting machines to 16 U.S. states. We all know which candidate Soros is supporting. I'll look for the articles and post a link.
The Electronic machines are worthwhile, they are all made by different companies. I thought the same thing as you but I looked into it, and it's pretty clean. The Federal Elections Commission actually inspects every machine to make sure it works properly. Also, the Soros voting machine thing is a red herring (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/24/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-election-george-soross-voting-machines/).

The issue with paper ballots is that:
1. They take longer to count
2. They are less secure
3. They are dependent on legibility (can be a big problem)

Abyssal Echo
October 30th, 2016, 01:06 PM
PlasmaHam Instead of trying to suppress voting rights of minorities so Trump as a chance to become the next fuhrer, everyone should focus on the real problem, these voting machines
yes the voting machines are a problem.
VUIRbBBEvk8 SxKIZD61u-Y
What does replacing an electronic voting machine with a paper ballot have to do with suppressing voting rights of minorities or anyone else for that matter.

The Electronic machines are worthwhile, they are all made by different companies. I thought the same thing as you but I looked into it, and it's pretty clean. The Federal Elections Commission actually inspects every machine to make sure it works properly. Also, the Soros voting machine thing is a red herring (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/24/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-election-george-soross-voting-machines/).

The issue with paper ballots is that:
1. They take longer to count
2. They are less secure
3. They are dependent on legibility (can be a big problem)

Where I live we use a paper ballot that is fed into an electronic counting machine so your argument that counting the votes takes longer isn't valid... the votes are just as secure or insecure depending on your point of view.
unfortunately according to what I've been told they're just as easy to tamper with for example it can be set so 1 vote = 1/4 vote. so it takes 4 votes to equal 1 vote for an issue or candidate.
really when it comes down to it our election is a scam anyway our president is selected not elected anyway :/
which should make you Hillary and new world order supporters happy
proof... Al Gore won the popular vote Bush was our Pres.
Kerry and Edwards won the popular vote we got Bush again
now it's Hillary vs Trump
I guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out....... according to Soros Trump will win the popular vote but it's a done deal Hillary will win the election.
_7LzLNgExYk

Porpoise101
October 30th, 2016, 06:38 PM
the votes are just as secure or insecure depending on your point of view.

There is no 'point of view' here. There is only one thing or the other, black or white in this situation. Electronic voting is objectively better, as it is easier to use and is more secure. That being said, some of the older machines are not aging well and should probably be upgraded.

unfortunately according to what I've been told they're just as easy to tamper with for example it can be set so 1 vote = 1/4 vote. so it takes 4 votes to equal 1 vote for an issue or candidate.

Yeah, but we have the inspectors to make sure that does not happen. Also, not all the machines are the same. They can even vary from precinct to precinct. That means that if you wanted to rig an election, you would need to control over half of the precincts (and their inspection teams) in the country, which is near impossible.

really when it comes down to it our election is a scam anyway our president is selected not elected anyway :/
which should make you Hillary and new world order supporters happy

The election is weird because of the electoral college, I get that. But it is not a complete scam for that. Not even a half-scam.

Lol unfortunately the NWO died when Bush lingered in Iraq for too long. Now it's just a pipe dream for globalists in DC.

proof... Al Gore won the popular vote Bush was our Pres.
Kerry and Edwards won the popular vote we got Bush again
now it's Hillary vs Trump

Yeah, I agree that the popular vote should choose the presidency. But it's not like the current system is totally undemocratic like you seem to be saying.

Interesting side-note, paper ballots (punch card type) were used in Florida during the 2000 election. The result was a bunch of unreadable ballots being thrown out in a swing state with Bush ahead by about 300 votes. If it were electronic, Kerry probably would have won.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out....... according to Soros Trump will win the popular vote but it's a done deal Hillary will win the election.

The models I've seen show Hillary as the most likely candidate to get the popular vote. It's possible for Trump though. It's more likely that neither Hillary nor Trump will achieve 50% of the vote.

Abyssal Echo
November 6th, 2016, 10:21 AM
There is no 'point of view' here. There is only one thing or the other, black or white in this situation. Electronic voting is objectively better, as it is easier to use and is more secure. That being said, some of the older machines are not aging well and should probably be upgraded.

Yeah, but we have the inspectors to make sure that does not happen. Also, not all the machines are the same. They can even vary from precinct to precinct. That means that if you wanted to rig an election, you would need to control over half of the precincts (and their inspection teams) in the country, which is near impossible.

The election is weird because of the electoral college, I get that. But it is not a complete scam for that. Not even a half-scam.

Lol unfortunately the NWO died when Bush lingered in Iraq for too long. Now it's just a pipe dream for globalists in DC.

Yeah, I agree that the popular vote should choose the presidency. But it's not like the current system is totally undemocratic like you seem to be saying.

Interesting side-note, paper ballots (punch card type) were used in Florida during the 2000 election. The result was a bunch of unreadable ballots being thrown out in a swing state with Bush ahead by about 300 votes. If it were electronic, Kerry probably would have won.

The models I've seen show Hillary as the most likely candidate to get the popular vote. It's possible for Trump though. It's more likely that neither Hillary nor Trump will achieve 50% of the vote.

If you're only following the main stream media yes Hillary is the most likely candidate to win because that is what they want you to believe. Many of the big money owned media outlets are very biased towards Hillary. Trump rallies are being attended by thousands Hillars are only being attended by hundreds some of those people are paid to be there.
The US elections are in my opinion a sham our leaders are selected by the big money elite they just make us think we have a say... we don't.
Soros has already said Trump wont be elected to office Wiki leaks Jullian Assange has also said that "they" (meaning the ruling elite) wont allow Trump to be president.
JQ7lYRnF1F8
here's some info on your beloved electronic voting machines....they're rigged and have been for years.
ljI-1fgWykI

Porpoise101
November 6th, 2016, 06:32 PM
If you're only following the main stream media yes Hillary is the most likely candidate to win because that is what they want you to believe. Many of the big money owned media outlets are very biased towards Hillary. Trump rallies are being attended by thousands Hillars are only being attended by hundreds some of those people are paid to be there.

Lol ok. I actually went to a Hillary rally this Friday since they had one in Detroit. It was at a farmers' market there so that was more fun than the actual rally, but that's besides the point. There was a lot of people there.

Trump had a rally in Metro-Detroit as well a while back. But unlike Hillary, he overbooks his rallies to make them seem packed with people. Also, Democratic-leaning voters are less prone to go to rallies. Really, the only rally-goers for them tend to be younger or live in cities. People who are tied down with family life (like most Dems) or have a hectic job (white-collar Dems) won't really care to show up. But they will still vote, and they will vote for Hillary if they do.
[QUOTE=Abyssal Echo;3452841]
The US elections are in my opinion a sham our leaders are selected by the big money elite they just make us think we have a say... we don't.
Soros has already said Trump wont be elected to office Wiki leaks Jullian Assange has also said that "they" (meaning the ruling elite) wont allow Trump to be president.

Let me explain away your baseless attacks. Soros was making a prediction, and a pretty good one about the presidency. If you go on any poll aggregator, they all show Clinton pretty well up.

As for Assange, that guy has a known vendetta against Clinton. The RT reporter even mentioned it. It's understandable considering he is some anarcho-libertarian or whatever. Of course he won't be fond of some elite politician. Also... RT? Really? Russian state news.. seems like a questionable choice to me.

I have a question for you though. How is there even a way for the superrich to take over our election. It's pretty clear Trump is going to lose based on his choices. He pretty much threw away any gains the GOP had on minorities and is riding on the (decreasing) bloc of white men. The only good thing about this election is that it will be the last time someone like Trump is a serious force to be reckoned with for a long time in the US.

here's some info on your beloved electronic voting machines....they're rigged and have been for years.
ljI-1fgWykI

This video documentary is from 2005, and was filmed in 2003. Furthermore, it is about the GEMS system of one type of machine, which isn't even in use anymore. The Diebold company is not even really existent, it is now a subsidiary of another corporation. The company changed the system in 2006 after a lawsuit. All of this means your single claim about my 'beloved voting machines' is not relevant at all.

If Trump fails to win, don't blame it on machines. Blame it on his bad policy positions, bad behavior, and unfavorable demographics.

Paraxiom
November 6th, 2016, 08:17 PM
the possibility of rioting is there but in my opinion it will be likely more ad hoc than fanned up by Trump, and especially so if Trump loses to what later proves via WikiLeaks to be fraudulent rigging. the reason I say "ad hoc" is because the white middle class is already (justifiably) full of resentment for the status quo, and in the event of a Trump loss it's not as though he would have anything personally to gain from his supporters going Wild West. it's quite true that this recent wave of populism has emboldened many whites who formerly felt alienated and alone in their convictions - this newfound consensus is empowering, you might say. but the fact remains that the erosion of our former hegemon was bound to cause upset eventually, if we want to blame Trump for this in any way we can start with his sudden and unforeseen exposure of America's enemies and getting them fearing for their jobs for the first time in a long time.

I don't want civil war (I don't think hardly anyone does) but it's not very factual to say or insinuate that everything was peaceful and looking up until Trump came along and destroyed everything with his divisive rhetoric. the divisions were already there.

Fourth Estate vs. Fourth Reich

I agree except for the part with Trump not fanning emotions up.


Everyone seems to be looking at the voter/ voter ID laws and requirements and over looking the obvious.
yup the electronic voting machine which can be programmed to produce whatever results that the programmer wants it to. I saw an article earlier that stated Texas is replacing the electronic machines with paper ballots because of this problem. I also saw another article that stated that Soros company provided voting machines to 16 U.S. states. We all know which candidate Soros is supporting. I'll look for the articles and post a link.

It is no coincidence that Trump has talked of election rigging more when he was in areas with electronic voting machines.