The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Three

[Han]

So not pro would mean 'not unequivocally in support of without debate'.

My personal position on all these politically correct topics would normally default to liberal e.g. I couldn't care less about a persons sex, sexuality or race.

The point being trying to stifle free speech on these topics is extremely concerning. Even if it offends you. It wont kill us to engage someone of differing opinion in debate. If someone wants to disagree with me and take a different view I don't want them punished or shut up by the law. That's tyranny.

You can't win a debate just by name calling someone e.g. a racist because they want illegal immagrants deported. Moral high ground is not winning an argument.

Here lies the problem people, the open market capitalism that the left thought would bring everyone together has resulted in the rich and poor divide growing and growing.

People want their day to day standard of living and opportunities to improve and the left have no answer all they can say to the right who offer a change is name calling of racists and bigots. Not going to work. Left have to offer economic change and prosperity plans not just name call from the moral high ground

Thank you for your reply.

I agree in part, but I think both sides are culpable for the amount of spin visible at the moment.

 

[Walter Bosley]

No?How so , she got more votes , 2 millions more.And don't start about the electoral college.

I'll start about the Electoral College any damned time I please. It's the way we do it here, whether you agree with it or not

 

[marduk]

I'll start about the Electoral College any damned time I please. It's the way we do it here, whether you agree with it or not

It's also stupid.

 

[Walter Bosley]

It's also stupid.

Only because your choice didn't win.

 

[kanakaris]

Only because your choice didn't win.

I couldn't care less who wins.
This is not democratic.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I couldn't care less who wins.
This is not democratic.

Neither is the US. We are a democratic republic. That's a different thing than pure democracy. Screw pure democracy.

 

[Randall]

It's fairly obvious that the election wasn't won on intellectual opinion. So what does that say about the ones who voted for the winner?

 

[SRL+]

Putin won the election via the Electoral College & the brain stem.

Americans keep looking away from the election’s most alarming story

Dennis Rodman + Kim Jong-Un = Steven Seagal + Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin just made it official with actor Steven Seagal’s Russian passport

 

[matthew1977]

It's fairly obvious that the election wasn't won on intellectual opinion. So what does that say about the ones who voted for the winner?

the lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

the lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils.

Exactly. So how smart does someone have to be to realize that the lesser is the obvious choice?

 

[marduk]

Only because your choice didn't win.

I've been saying it's stupid since I learned about it.

Since the second bush era.

You know? "Jihad jihad" and all that?

 

[Tyger]

Only because your choice didn't win.

What will happen if the perfectly legal audit of the vote counts in 3 states (that Jill Stein has initiated) result in Hillary winning the presidency? Will you be okay with that? Serious question.

 

[Tyger]

I'll start about the Electoral College any damned time I please. It's the way we do it here, whether you agree with it or not.

Not quite - the Electoral College has been a source of considerbale debate - given it's rationale for existing at all in the first place. I imagine had the situation been reversed regarding Trump you would be railing against the Electoral College. Am I right? Because 'the way we do it here' also involves vote audits, challenges, and re-counts - which is currently underway because of the following (and a suggestion of rigging) -

2016 US Presidential ElectionPopular Vote (still being counted)
Hillary Clinton (D) 64,641,150 47.97%
Donald Trump (R) 62,438,889 46.34%

Difference is 2,202,261 - that's 2 million, two hundred two thousand, one hundred fifty votes. This count has changed by 200,000 in just the last few days - now it's at 2.2 million votes - with a 1.63% margin. And still counting!

 

[Tyger]

Neither is the US. We are a democratic republic. That's a different thing than pure democracy. Screw pure democracy.

Methinks you misunderstand. The republic part merely means we have representatives do our bidding by the rule of law.
The citizenry very much democratically elects their leaders and - ideally - the leaders are accounatble to the governed.

Check out Wikipedia: "A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly referred to as a government which excludes a monarch."

 

[Tyger]

It's fairly obvious that the election wasn't won on intellectual opinion. So what does that say about the ones who voted for the winner?

Well, that's the question. Especially as it's becoming very clear that bogus information was salted into the internet landscape - see Gene's post and S.R.L.'s post each with links regarding the issue of 'fake news' and why it was generated.

I saw posts (here on these threads) that used links to these 'fake news' stories, whose 'facts' were being used as rationales as to why Hillary was a poor bet. None of the posters who supplied those links - and argued using those links - are addressing the fact that they were being lied to big time. I would very much like to know how those posters are working with the 'fake news' revelations. Open question.

 

[marduk]

Methinks you misunderstand. The republic part merely means we have representatives do our bidding by the rule of law.
The citizenry very much democratically elects their leaders and - ideally - the leaders are accounatble to the governed.

Check out Wikipedia: "A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly referred to a government which excludes a monarch."

You're appealing to reason where none exists.

A sysiphean task if I ever saw one.

 

[Tyger]

My understanding from a more recent article is that Jill Stein has raised on the order of $7 million dollars (at this point) - raising $2 million in just one day (the first day). I think we can surmise that there is serious objections to the outcome of this election across a broad spectrum of US citizens - and democracy, albeit cumbersome and slow, is rising to the challenge via rule of law.

Jill Stein raising millions for recount: Here's how it would work
LINK: Jill Stein raising millions for recount: Here's how it would work

Election recount will take place in Wisconsin; Pa. deadline next
LINK: Election recount will take place in Wisconsin; Pa. deadline next

Of course, Trump would call anything that challenges him a derogatory term, impugning motives. It's all he knows, after all. As Stein says: "[Trump] may be creating his own facts here as he's been known to do some times in the past. He himself said it was a rigged election unless he won it."

Clinton to join recount that Trump calls 'scam'
LINK: Clinton to join recount that Trump calls 'scam' - CNNPolitics.com

TEXT: Elias said the campaign had been quietly investigating accusations for a while and had received hundreds of requests that it do so. "Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides," Elias wrote on Medium. "If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well," he added.

Brian Fallon, spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said the team would not have sought the recount on its own and that they see no evidence of tampering so far. "We note we are guarding our prerogatives now that someone else has launched a recount. Not sure what you could point to to suggest there is anything here that calls the results into question," he told CNN.

The Clinton campaign has met with lawyers, data scientists and analysts to assess anomalies in the results that would suggest a hacked result. Private meetings with outside experts involved sharing both groups concerns about the data and findings. Clinton's team said they investigated every theory presented and examined laws and practices pertaining to recounts, contests and audits. "And most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses -- where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night," Elias said. "During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton's vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes."

The campaign plans to move forward in monitoring activities to better understand the results. "In the coming days, we will continue to perform our due diligence and actively follow all further activities that are to occur prior to the certification of any election results," he said. It is "unfortunate" that all states don't conduct "post-election" audits. "Wisconsin and Pennsylvania conduct post-election audits using a sampling of precincts. Michigan and many other states still do not," Elias wrote. "This is unfortunate; it is our strong belief that, in addition to an election canvass, every state should do this basic audit to ensure accuracy and public confidence in the election."​

 

[Tyger]

I offer this here with some caveat: the fact that Snowden sent an encypted message via Twitter this week that got some questioning if he were still alive. His contacts say he is alive - but I am wondering exactly how free Snowden really is. Can we believe his assertions at this point? Puzzle.

SNOWDEN: “RUSSIA SUCCESSFULLY RIGGED US ELECTIONS IN FAVOR OF TRUMP”
LINK: SNOWDEN: “RUSSIA SUCCESSFULLY RIGGED US ELECTIONS IN FAVOR OF TRUMP”

TEXT (Excerpt): "Former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden announced this morning that he had 'clear evidence' that the 2016 US election was rigged by Russian hackers in favor of Donald Trump. 'I have received confirmation through Guccifer 2.0 that malware was used in the electronic voting machines that lead to the victory of Donald Trump,' Snowden told an internet conference in Berlin, speaking via a video link from Russia, where he has been living as a fugitive.

"Surprisingly enough, Edward Snowden honestly admits that voter fraud is common in every election and in every part of the world. 'Democracy is a beautiful illusion and the power brokers of the world are intent in keeping our faith in this system alive. It is why it is important to keep the belief of a truly democratic system, when in fact, we are being ruled by the 1% of this world,' he bluntly said during the one hour and a half video conference.

“ 'The truth is that sometimes the people actually get who they actually voted for, if the establishment has decided they approve of that choice. Voter manipulation is a combination of the coercion of the major media groups and electronic voting fraud,' he explained.

Divide and conquer
"The former NSA contractor claims the election fraud was done by tampering with the software of voting machines to add malicious code altering vote totals to favor a particular candidate. 'When you see that the election is divided 51/49, it just clearly shows the election results are biased. Statistically talking, it is impossible to have such a tight election with over 100 million voters. The malware’s algorithm secretly rigs an election to sway the result 51/49 to a specified side, it is clearly a divide and conquer strategy to create the illusion of a division within the population, and this algorithm has pretty much been used around the world in every election for the past 20 years or so,' he explained.

“ 'What is most surprising about this election, according to my information, is that the electronic voting machines were clearly rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but Russian hackers cunningly used this to their advantage and inverted the process towards Donald Trump in the last moments leading to his election,' he added.

Proof of fraud in Wisconsin
"Academics Against Voter Fraud (AAVF), an independent organization that surveys electronic voting machine data, presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000."​

 

[marduk]

It's as simple as this.
If you believe in truth, you welcome a recount.

 

[Tyger]

I recall the 2012 presidential election and the extraordinarily long time it took Romney to come out and give his concession speech. Personally, I think Romney and the Republicans were stunned at the reversal. They didn't expect it - it was 'suppose' to have been assured in Romney's favor. Given what we now know - or more correctly: suppose - given circumstantial evidence and the claims of Anonymous - about the reversal of the vote count at a key moment on election night - what to make of anything?

Other scuttlebut is that Obama's win in the popular vote in 2008 was so large that they could not effect the flip.

If we listen to the 'word on the street' - all elections since 2000 have been rigged one way or another. Truth?