[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-09-2016 11:08 PM)chicane Wrote:  

Rigged elections? Here's an interesting bit of information: http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

"Our polling system is completely above board!"

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/busin...ae6b3.html

"Oh. You want to check..? Umm..... no."

Choice quotes:

Quote:

Clarkson went to court to get access to the paper audit trails from voting machines in 2014 after she found what she called inexplicable discrepancies between results of large and small voting stations. A district court ruled Clarkson couldn't have access to those paper trails.

Clarkson then decided to create her own paper trail with an exit poll. Clarkson said she would tally her survey and adjust for voters who declined to participate. She would then see whether the official count was within her margin of error.

Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Tabitha Lehman said she welcomed the exit poll.

"I'm glad they're doing it," Lehman said. "It's going to prove that our counts are accurate."

"Fuck off. We're not giving you access to the evidence. Exit poll? Oh... umm... so glad you're keeping a watchful eye out."

[Diogenes]

(08-09-2016 04:45 PM)britchard Wrote:  

I'm actually tempted to put a large bet on a Clinton win, so I'll be happy whatever the result.

You can't win a bet on the end of the world.

[britchard]

(08-09-2016 06:02 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Fair enough.

But that doesn't change the fact that you don't sound very sorry.

I stand by my bubble analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sorry'. I'm speaking to a stranger on the Internet, of course I'm not as 'sorry' as I would be if I ran over my neighbour's dog.

It's a figure of speech, and I can see why you think I might not actually be 'sorry'. It was meant in a sort of 'I regret to tell you this but..' way, but putting it like that my come across as extremely condescending.

Anyway, I've extremely over-analysed this.

(08-09-2016 06:27 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 04:45 PM)britchard Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:26 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

People who say "sorry to pop your bubble" are never sorry to pop your bubble.

I do genuinely think that some of the guys on here can only see a Trump win, and that anything else won't happen. Not necessarily OP, but I've seen it.

I just hope that everyone knows a Trump win is extremely unlikely. I'm actually tempted to put a large bet on a Clinton win, so I'll be happy whatever the result.

Clinton's odds are 1/4. The only thing that gives me hope about that is that the 'remain' referendum outcome was also 1/4.

Talk about a defeatist attitude.

Do you tell yourself the same thing when you have a hot piece of ass in front of you that you're gaming ?

Hey Britchard, sorry to pop your bubble, but you'll never fuck that hottie.

Or you think, "Man I'm never going to the fuck this hot girl that's talking to me"

That's negative man, sure you can be a cynic or realist, it's all negative energy.

I'm all in on the Trump train, people are freaking about ((((polls))) - guess who controls those polls, the MSM and Hillary's friends.

Stop living in the clouds, get your boots on the ground, jump in trenches with us, fight the good fight and go out and talk about Trump, defend your ground, fight them back with common sense, fight them with facts, logic, evidence.

That's how you start to get the ball rolling.

If you looked at the first page of the Trump thread you'd of seen yours truly say this:

Quote:

The republicans are continually splintering their vote, this is a fucking joke.

It's turning into a circus, there needs to reformation in the party.

Fuck him and the 2 party joke of a system.

Funny how things change eh ?

it's much easier to have a defeatist attitude when the result is effectively out of your hands. I'd would love, absolutely love, Trump to win; but there's almost nothing I can do to help this happen.

With a hot girl, I know that the result is purely down to me, it's on me if it goes wrong. I guess I'm not confident in the general population to vote for the best candidate for President.

There's a quote that says something along the lines of 'Scratch the skin of a cynic, and you'll find a disappointed idealist'. I think this is what is causing my cynicism. There's been so many times I've been disappointed politically (failure of UKIP to win many seats in the General Election, gay marriage, feminist shit, tranny shit) that I find it hard to believe something good will actually happen.

(08-09-2016 06:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 04:45 PM)britchard Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:26 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

People who say "sorry to pop your bubble" are never sorry to pop your bubble.

I do genuinely think that some of the guys on here can only see a Trump win, and that anything else won't happen. Not necessarily OP, but I've seen it.

I just hope that everyone knows a Trump win is extremely unlikely. I'm actually tempted to put a large bet on a Clinton win, so I'll be happy whatever the result.

Clinton's odds are 1/4. The only thing that gives me hope about that is that the 'remain' referendum outcome was also 1/4.

If the odds were so TERRIBLY wrong on Brexit why will they be accurate on Clinton? You don't think your information through.

Those were the odds the day of the referendum. A fairer equivalency would be with the presidential odds very close to polling day.

How are polls done in America? In the UK there is a systematic underestimate of the conservative (old) vote, presumably because less of them are online or are signed up to phone polls.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's easy to hope that Trump will swoop in, win against whatever odds he's up against and lead a revival of the can-do America of yesteryear. But hope is the mantle of the useful idiots on the left.

Cheer Trump. Meanwhile, make sure that you yourself embody the change you want to see. If every Trump supporter spoke their mind then political correctness would be gone tomorrow.

He might win. He might not. It shouldn't alter what you plan to do today, tomorrow and the day after.

[Orson]

Yes, I agree. Let me expand on our agreement.

Insurrection is unlikely because of the lack of organization for use of force to effect and sustain legal separation.

The sort of stuff Tea Partiers and so-called "militia" types indulged in during Obama's first term would need to come to a simmering boil - ie, on the edge of becoming mainstream, not just in isolated fever swamps and rural gun-toting guerrilla wanna-be's, but in the suburbs too.

Organization and communication - probably much of it secret communication.

On the more optimistic side, I believe a sufficiently well-organized effort would not be "put down" by fellow Americans in the military (eg, national guard). This means the state's governor would have to be co-opted into cooperation or at least tolerance of the radical and rebellious action.

Remember, under Obama, enormous amounts of ammunition were bought up to drive the price up and make it scarce. No one seems to tell us where it's gone! Who knows if some newly militarized arm of the federal government would meet the threat outright - and try to defeat a rebellion?

(08-10-2016 01:50 AM)Kalkin Wrote:  

I am doubtful of "insurrection", but for the first time in my life, I can see a case for civil war.

I don't think it likely, just possible.

The reasons are overall declining standards of living, a general malaise, and a media that has a habit of intentionally inciting civil unrest, and nowadays even terrorism, as a pretext for change. Then one day they're going to incite something they can't control. It will go on one-sided for a long time, until a small and well-armed faction of the other decides that it has had enough, and engages.

The trigger could be a Venezuela-style economic meltdown. Which, ultimately, is inevitable. Followed by an inflammatory media blitz encouraging certain classes of people to blame other classes of people.

I suspect this scenario has already been foreseen, and is one reason for a renewed push for, ultimately, comprehensive gun control.