Who won the debate?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:25 am

I know they are already declaring Clinton the winner, but what do you think?

Personally, I think they both were losers, and I struggled to take them as serious competitors for the President of the United States.

Trump, surprisingly had a few good points, it a shame that is a 70 year old child. At this point, to me, it does not really matter much what Clinton looks like, as that man clearly is not fit to be president.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:33 pm

Our country lost...cuz one of them will win.

IMO, Hitlery won..she was more specific.
Trump...was typical Trump...just spewing his usual bumper sticker generic statements.
The both lied (no surprise of course)...but he lied bit more.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:35 pm

[video=youtube;m9b3_O7hEl4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9b3_O7hEl4[/video]

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:37 pm

Seriously though, Hillary just powered through

Post by **Philip** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:31 am

Hillary was a bit more composed/prepared it seemed, with a few slippery politician overtones, but the difference wasn't nearly as wide as media tried to portray it imho. Trump doesn't seize to amaze me with his audacity to plug himself in the news spotlight daily, boast his "huge" "tremendous" achievements, at the debate he also kept advertising how he got the endorsement of admirals/generals, police, etc.

Ultimately, the debate was filled with too much ego, interruptions, personal attacks and not enough policy for my taste.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:58 pm

Hillary definitely made some slips that a practiced politician should not make, but I suppose debating Trump is probably very rattling. I don't really see the problem as the candidates themselves, but rather with a system that leaves us with such limited choices. There were better choices, but we are at the whim of who the two major parties choose to support, and it is too late to switch now.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:32 pm

Trump does not seem to be handling the aftermath of the debate very well. He is all over the news in Google, which he claims is a Google conspiracy to make him look bad. But he gives the media plenty of ammo and draws so much more attention to himself, that Google does not have to conspire against him. He makes an ass of himself all by himself. Every now and then I see Hillary jabbing at him, it makes her look a bit childish, but the man is so easy to provoke, so I don't know, maybe it is a good strategy when it comes to Trump.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:26 pm

Sometimes I wonder if the Clinton Foundation hired Trump a few years ago...to switch teams to the Repubs...and run for office. Knowing he would push out other Repub candidates....but then make a buffoon over himself once it was just him and Hillery.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:54 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Hillary definitely made some slips that a practiced politician should not make, but I suppose debating Trump is probably very rattling. I don't really see the problem as the candidates themselves, but rather with a system that leaves us with such limited choices. There were better choices, but we are at the whim of who the two major parties choose to support, and it is too late to switch now.

The Republican party didn't support Trump, the people did.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:02 pm

Hillary pushed his buttons and it worked, can you say

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:20 pm

cybotron r_9 wrote:The Republican party didn't support Trump, the people did.

The majority of Trump supporters are Republican.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:58 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:The majority of Trump supporters are Republican.

That is probably true but the GOP neither wanted Trump nor gave him much support

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:33 pm

cybotron r_9 wrote:That is probably true but the GOP neither wanted Trump nor gave him much support

Well, that is just flat out not true, but whatever. I am not really sure what you consider the GOP, but he would not be the Republican nominee, without support from the Republican party.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:30 pm

cybotron r_9 wrote:That is probably true but the GOP neither wanted Trump nor gave him much support

Very true. I'm historically Republican...but something was very odd with this election process, and I can't stand him (or her for that matter.and there have been some Democrats I've liked..I believe in an alternating government, keeps things rather middle of the road in the long haul) Trump isn't even traditionally Republican...hell he was a Democrat not long ago.

He seems to be doing well based on "he's anti establishment"...people sick of "buy your way" government, where lobbyists can buy their way, are going the Trump way.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:56 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Very true. I'm historically Republican...but something was very odd with this election process, and I can't stand him (or her for that matter.and there have been some Democrats I've liked..I believe in an alternating government, keeps things rather middle of the road in the long haul) Trump isn't even traditionally Republican...hell he was a Democrat not long ago.

He seems to be doing well based on "he's anti establishment"...people sick of "buy your way" government, where lobbyists can buy their way, are going the Trump way.

"very odd with this election process"

He is the the officially selected representative of the Republican party in this election. There is nothing fishy about it, as at the time he was the most rational choice. He has money and fame, two things that go a long ways in politics. The Republicans knew that Clinton was running, they knew that she already had money, name recognition, and supporters. So they needed someone of the same caliber, and there is nothing shady about the choice.

The problem is that he has no experience as a politician, so he has no clue what he is doing. He knows how to be a reality TV personality, and that is what he is doing. If this was for a reality TV show, then how he is acting is exactly how he should act, because people love to watch stupid. The simple truth is that Trump has no experience here, so he is trying to compensate with his experience as a reality TV personality. That is not any grand conspiracy, and that is something we all knew from day one.

"...hell he was a Democrat not long ago"

He would not be the first person to switch alignment for political gains. Had he went with the Democrats, then he would have had to compete with Hillary for the Democratic nominee. It was a smarter move for him to go Republican.

Americans are so paranoid with conspiracy theories, that politicians are able to use that paranoia to influence people. It is George Wallace politics, just listen to the candidates (especially Trump, but even Hillary a bit), listen to what they say, and it becomes very clear that they are trying to tap into that paranoia. The truth is probably a lot more dull than what the public fantasizes, for both of the candidates. It has become so easy to create mistrust in Americans, they think there is a conspiracy around every turn, waiting right there to get them.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:49 am

It's quite obvious you're young. Ya need to live a few decades with your eyes open. I'm far from any conspiracy theory, nor is that a serious statement...read between the lines (another inexperience observation).

re: "same caliber"...LOL..that right there is funny! Again..I hate Hillery....but she's a lifetime of 24x7x365 inner workings of politics. Trump is just partially silver spoon fed spoiled crybaby that further evolved his life on ever expanding credit (aka perma debt).

This election year is one of the greatest examples of, if not THE greatest example of, "Vote for you you think will do the least damage". It's never been this bad of a choice in recent generations....and either way, America is going to pay the price. We'll see record numbers of people that don't like their parties candidate...and fail to show up at the booths. And I predict we'll see that more with conservatives...who realize Trump isn't presidential material. And Hillery will win.

It's a sad year for America. Rest of the world is laughing at us over this predicament.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:49 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:It's quite obvious you're young. Ya need to live a few decades with your eyes open. I'm far from any conspiracy theory, nor is that a serious statement...read between the lines (another inexperience observation).

re: "same caliber"...LOL..that right there is funny! Again..I hate Hillery....but she's a lifetime of 24x7x365 inner workings of politics. Trump is just partially silver spoon fed spoiled crybaby that further evolved his life on ever expanding credit (aka perma debt).

This election year is one of the greatest examples of, if not THE greatest example of, "Vote for you you think will do the least damage". It's never been this bad of a choice in recent generations....and either way, America is going to pay the price. We'll see record numbers of people that don't like their parties candidate...and fail to show up at the booths. And I predict we'll see that more with conservatives...who realize Trump isn't presidential material. And Hillery will win.

It's a sad year for America. Rest of the world is laughing at us over this predicament.

"It's quite obvious you're young. Ya need to live a few decades with your eyes open. [. . . .] (another inexperience observation).

I am old enough to recognize rudeness. I am also old enough to know that argument is nonsense, and that you should do better then just declaring yourself smarter.

"'same caliber'...LOL..that right there is funny!"

When it comes to name recognition, fans and money, yes he is of the same caliber. Try reading in context next time.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:29 am

jeremyboycool wrote: When it comes to name recognition, fans and money, yes he is of the same caliber. Try reading in context next time.

There's absolutely no "same caliber" between the two. You don't just compare name recognition....hell Hitler or Genghis Khan or Christopher Columbus have name recognition.....has nothing to do with comparing qualities pertinent to a presidential election. Repeating my post above...Hillerys "name recognition" as far as politics are concerned...it's her entire life (not that I agree with what she's done). Trump...nothing, nada, zip.

Fans? Trumps pissed off people most of his life, best claim to fame is dumbed down idiot TV reality fans...the same fans who watch other garbage such as the Kartrashians. Low IQ.

Money? They're oodles apart. Clintons combined net worth around 50 mil, granted lots more gets hidden and funneled through their foundation to avoid taxing eyes..but 50 mil is a generous estimate. Trumps is more towards several billion. Granted...most of it "fake money on paper" based on loans and borrowing and investors....

Absolutely in context.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:26 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:There's absolutely no "same caliber" between the two. You don't just compare name recognition....hell Hitler or Genghis Khan or Christopher Columbus have name recognition.....has nothing to do with comparing qualities pertinent to a presidential election. Repeating my post above...Hillerys "name recognition" as far as politics are concerned...it's her entire life (not that I agree with what she's done). Trump...nothing, nada, zip.

Fans? Trumps pissed off people most of his life, best claim to fame is dumbed down idiot TV reality fans...the same fans who watch other garbage such as the Kartrashians. Low IQ.

Money? They're oodles apart. Clintons combined net worth around 50 mil, granted lots more gets hidden and funneled through their foundation to avoid taxing eyes..but 50 mil is a generous estimate. Trumps is more towards several billion. Granted...most of it "fake money on paper" based on loans and borrowing and investors....

Absolutely in context.

"You don't just compare name recognition [. . . .] has nothing to do with comparing qualities pertinent to a presidential election."

I never said that was the end all be all of it, but if the goal is to get a candidate elected, then it is an important factor, and that has been proven by means greater than being 49 years of age. This is without a doubt one of the reasons Trump was chosen by the Republicans.

In this article, we have focused on the effects of name recognition on electoral
decision-making. With our first laboratory experiment, we have shown that subliminal
presentations of a hypothetical candidate’s name have significant effects on vote choice,
affect, and inferences about viability. These effects are reasonably large in magnitude and
reflect an interconnected set of attitudes about a particular candidate. The results reflect
Zajonc’s concept of “perceptual fluency,” whereby mere exposure induces liking, but they
go beyond this concept, too, in showing that subjects make viability inferences based on
their familiarity with the candidate – inferences that then produce greater affect and support
for the candidate. In particular, we have shown that mere exposure enhances inferences
26
about the viability of a candidate, a finding that relates neatly with the literature on
bandwagoning during political campaigns. In contrast to scholarship suggesting that name
recognition does not directly influence candidate support, we find clear evidence of a causal
link, which demonstrates that – in at least some conditions – name recognition can increase
candidate support.

https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/K ... 282011.pdf

"Repeating my post above...Hillerys "name recognition" as far as politics are concerned..."

I don't necessarily disagree, I was only pointing out the likely reasons the Republican party picked Trump. Now as far as political experience, clearly this is where Trump's name is a hindrance, and it is one of the main points of Hillary's campaign. I never argued otherwise and in fact I mentioned his lack of experience as one of his problems.

We next considered the limits of name recognition, in particular assessing whether a
more applicable cue would substitute for, and therefore eliminate the effects of, name
recognition. In two supplementary studies, we have also shown that these mere recognition
effects dissipate in the presence of a more politically relevant criterion: incumbent status.

https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/K ... 282011.pdf

I was speaking more in terms to why the Republicans picked Trump, and in relation to those three points. I am sorry if my text in that matter was not clear enough for you. In other aspects I agree that Trump is not the same "caliber" as Clinton, but really that is about as far as I am willing to squabble over a subjective interpretation of "caliber."

"Fans? Trumps pissed off people most of his life, best claim to fame is dumbed down idiot TV reality fans...the same fans who watch other garbage such as the Kartrashians. Low IQ."

Fans? Or can we call them voters?

"Money? They're oodles apart. Clintons combined net worth around 50 mil, granted lots more gets hidden and funneled through their foundation to avoid taxing eyes..but 50 mil is a generous estimate. Trumps is more towards several billion. Granted...most of it "fake money on paper" based on loans and borrowing and investors....
"
Well in determining the value of his money on the campaign trail, they not only had to compare it to their opponents, but to other Republican candidates as well. They needed to ask themselves who has the money to run a campaign against Hillary. Also I would imagine that for the purposes of getting elected at a certain level there is a diminishing return on the impact of campaign funds.

**Edit - This campaign here is an example of what happens when the parties are more worried about winning, than getting the right person for the job. Bernie Sanders was a better pick than Hillary, and for Trump well any of the other Republican candidates was a better pick than Trump. Who is best for the job was not the question they asked, they looked at the candidates and said who will get us the most votes.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:59 am

I don't really blame either party for the outcome of this election, or even the candidates themselves. Instead I think this is simply one of the limits of a two party system. If we had more options, then the chances of a quality candidate becoming President would increase.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:49 am

jeremyboycool wrote:I don't really blame either party for the outcome of this election, or even the candidates themselves. Instead I think this is simply one of the limits of a two party system. If we had more options, then the chances of a quality candidate becoming President would increase.

As the tides ebb and flow so do the mindsets of nations.. what is popular today might not be tomorrow. The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa even if they both have changed seats in the social spectrum in what they believe over the years .

You do have other choices for your vote.

Libertarians Gary Johnson I'm guessing with Trump loosing votes some are going to Johnson for sure.

The Green Party Jill Stein and I'm guessing that those in the court of Saunders, of might think of voting for her although I know Johnson will pick up some of them too.

The Constitution Party Darrel Castle

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

of course the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (communist) dunno who's running I could look it up but hey..

The point being that we do have other parties..

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:09 pm

downhill wrote:As the tides ebb and flow so do the mindsets of nations.. what is popular today might not be tomorrow. The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa even if they both have changed seats in the social spectrum in what they believe over the years .

You do have other choices for your vote.

Libertarians Gary Johnson I'm guessing with Trump loosing votes some are going to Johnson for sure.

The Green Party Jill Stein and I'm guessing that those in the court of Saunders, of might think of voting for her although I know Johnson will pick up some of them too.

The Constitution Party Darrel Castle

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

of course the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (communist) dunno who's running I could look it up but hey..

The point being that we do have other parties..

"The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa "

Personally, I don't think we should be putting all our eggs in only those two baskets, as it allows too much leeway for mob rule, but that's a whole another ball of wax.

"You do have other choices for your vote."

Technically, yes. Realistically; however, there are only two contenders for the next President of the United States. And that is just as much the fault of the voters, as it is our system of government. I believe though, that people will get fed up enough with the Republicans and Democrats that that may change in the future.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:29 pm

Americans need to stop looking at the presidential election as voting for the lesser of two evils, and just vote for the person they actually want in office.

How a single person votes, whether that is Trump or Hillary, will have no impact on the outcome of this election. I don't care what a person thinks about the voting process, mathematically, the difference a single vote makes is so small we can consider it zero. However, if enough people started voting for a 3rd party, it would at least send a message to the two major parties that they need to change.

The American people, need to change their mindset about the presidential election, instead engaging in the practice of voting for someone they don't like, they need to vote for someone they do like.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:59 am

jeremyboycool wrote:
I was speaking more in terms to why the Republicans picked Trump, and in relation to those three points. I am sorry if my text in that matter was not clear enough for you. .

Your "text in the matter" is easily understood...no need to think it was complicated with rare insight that some people might miss. But if you take the time to look deeper (my whole point).

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:01 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Your "text in the matter" is easily understood...no need to think it was complicated with rare insight that some people might miss. But if you take the time to look deeper (my whole point).

You're just upset because I didn't buckle in the presence of your great brilliance.

Post by **Philip** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:25 pm

This thread is heading in a direction that is just too... brilliant. Personal attacks wont bring anything good to the discussion, let's just calm down a bit.

Camryn64 · Post by **Camryn64** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:07 pm

in my opinion clinton is the winner

BMED · Post by **BMED** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:02 am

jeremyboycool wrote:I know they are already declaring Clinton the winner, but what do you think?

Personally, I think they both were losers, and I struggled to take them as serious competitors for the President of the United States.

Trump, surprisingly had a few good points, it a shame that is a 70 year old child. At this point, to me, it does not really matter much what Clinton looks like, as that man clearly is not fit to be president.

IMHO there were no winners in the debate, including the voters! This election has turned into a three-ring circus with these two clowns and the debate did not change my outlook or opinion with either candidate. I'm not going to argue or debate my thoughts in this forum, although the preceding post did trigger a slight flashback of SG during the early years (good old days)!

I can only encourage everyone I know to get out there on election day and give it all you have and vote!

PS, I do have audio of YOS degrading a Denny's waitress in Michigan over a decade ago...parental advisory, explicit content!

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:07 pm

BMED wrote:IMHO there were no winners in the debate, including the voters! This election has turned into a three-ring circus with these two clowns and the debate did not change my outlook or opinion with either candidate. I'm not going to argue or debate my thoughts in this forum, although the preceding post did trigger a slight flashback of SG during the early years (good old days)!

I can only encourage everyone I know to get out there on election day and give it all you have and vote!

PS, I do have audio of YOS degrading a Denny's waitress in Michigan over a decade ago...parental advisory, explicit content!

LOL..what a night!
Wonder how Noevo is doing?

Over the weekend, a TV station was playing a re-run of the '92 presidential debate between Bill Clinton, Bush Sr, and Ross Perot.
I remember that election well, and the debate. Watching it again....it was amazing to see how well behaved they were, how intelligently they all answered the questions from the mods, I was sitting there watching it thinking ..."I'd not be terribly unhappy with any one of them as prez."

It was sad...realizing those days of having qualified candidates, and good debates, are gone!

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:34 am

I don't believe that a responsible citizen could vote for either one of the front runners. What a shame the others couldn't be a part of the debates. We have done it to ourselves.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:24 pm

[video=youtube;SzcjexXZ6yg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzcjexXZ6yg[/video]

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:50 pm

The Republican Party is jumping ship, so many have declared a withdrawal of support. Of course a withdrawal of, implies the presence of initially, but whatever. Regardless, it will not reflect well on the party, and it will likely have effects greater than the loss of the election (the likely outcome).

I think part of the problem is how opinionated people have become in this country. It is enhanced by that sense of self-entitlement so many Americans have. Over confidante and lazy, Americans have lost touch with applying serious critical and analytical thought. The Internet, probably, has a lot do to with it, as it has numbed us to proper social graces (which facilitates fruitful debate and compromise), and has lowered the standards for what passes as sound judgment and what is considered a reliable source of information. A random news link or blog on the net, is not a source of information, sure they can be interesting, but no faith can be put in anything printed in those mediums, but since we are lovers of opinion, we seek out sources that appeal to what we want to believe rather than seeking the truth.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:34 pm

More silliness.. from the typical bunch here. Keep drinking the kool aide Tax payers have spent over 500 million dollars on Republican witch hunts on the Clintons ............................. What have the tax payers got out of all this? Nothing..... Makes you wonder who the real criminals are.

No I didn't support Hilliary I was and am a Bernie fan but lets suppose he got the nomination over Clinton? IMHO all the Clinton witch hunts would end and would shift to Bernie.. He's coming after your guns, your ammo, on and on and on.. oh and he wasn't born here.. Really the only way either one could possibly end what's been going on for the last 8 years is to have congress swing too and maybe the Senate will but the House I doubt.

Thank you Faux News and talk radio for all the hate you've generated and to Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and John Boehner . You've managed to get a full blown narcissistic lying demigod nominated for the Republican party. It was only a matter of time. You have only yourselves to blame.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:42 am

The attachment RebootElection.jpg is no longer available

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:16 am

Trump is a freaking sociopath, and this notion that Hillary is as bad as him is just thoughtless. Trump makes Hillary look like a golden ticket to Charlie Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

His claims of a rigged election is just stupid. I hear that nonsense all the time, and never, I mean never, is it ever backed by anything substantial. Same with the claim of voter fraud, all the evidence clearly shows that voter fraud, on a scale that would any significance influence, just does not happen, and would be extraordinarily hard to pull off. But making wild claims without any proof has become the norm, and that is why someone like Trump can stand up there and make these crazy claims. People don't care about truth anymore; instead they care about being right, so much that they will rally and cheer for madness, and disregard anything that may prove them wrong.

Post by **Philip** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:51 am

voter fraud, on a scale that would any significance influence, just does not happen, and would be extraordinarily hard to pull off

Even if it can't all clearly be defined as "fraud", there are many strong forces on both sides of the fence that affect elections, the country has become very polarized.

In 2000, the presidential elections were decided by 537 Florida votes (along with the Secretary of State Katherine Harris choice to stop recounts and a Supreme Court decision)
Just watch the movie "Recount" if you haven't, it may change your mind on that, every elected and appointed official matters. It is also available on HBO Go it seems:

http://www.hbo.com/movies/recount

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:43 pm

Philip wrote:Even if it can't all clearly be defined as "fraud", there are many strong forces on both sides of the fence that affect elections, the country has become very polarized.

In 2000, the presidential elections were decided by 537 Florida votes (along with the Secretary of State Katherine Harris choice to stop recounts and a Supreme Court decision)
Just watch the movie "Recount" if you haven't, it may change your mind on that, every elected and appointed official matters. It is also available on HBO Go it seems:

http://www.hbo.com/movies/recount

I remember that election, and it hardly proves the type of voter fraud I am referring to is a real problem. Show me an academic article giving proof of significant statistical influence of voter fraud; that is all I'll accept. Hard scientific evidence. The truth is, overly restrictive voter fraud laws often discourage more lawful voter than prevent any real voter fraud, which has a stronger influence on the outcome of an election than the voter fraud. Also, the level at which it happens is so insignificant that it can't possibly be the work of any serious political candidates, as the risk vs. reward is just not there. It just does not follow to think the dems or the reps are engaged in wide spread voter fraud.

Sorry, I am not looking for a movie, as I am tried of beating around the bush and playing the what-if game; I am looking for something of a scientific nature.

Post by **Philip** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:04 pm

I don't want to limit myself to a particular flavor of fraud you are referring to in the current partisan polarizing political efforts to disenfranchise voters. I also don't plan on digging for potential academic articles that prove "significant statistical influence"...

All I was trying to illustrate is that "significant" is a very subjective term, based on the following simple proven facts from the 2000 Presidential election:

1. The Florida election was decided by less than 1,000 votes. (so less than 1000 votes is still a significant figure on a national scale)
2. 57,700 people (mostly Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent) were incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting.
3. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris set the parameters for inclusions to that list of felons (real-life example of a single person influencing the Presidential Elections. Fraud ? Alleged, but unproven of course)

Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:16 am

Philip wrote:I don't want to limit myself to a particular flavor of fraud you are referring to in the current partisan polarizing political efforts to disenfranchise voters. I also don't plan on digging for potential academic articles that prove "significant statistical influence"...

All I was trying to illustrate is that "significant" is a very subjective term, based on the following simple proven facts from the 2000 Presidential election:

1. The Florida election was decided by less than 1,000 votes. (so less than 1000 votes is still a significant figure on a national scale)
2. 57,700 people (mostly Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent) were incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting.
3. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris set the parameters for inclusions to that list of felons (real-life example of a single person influencing the Presidential Elections. Fraud ? Alleged, but unproven of course)

Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

I am sorry, but given the nature of the subject, I need to see some sources. Please try to understand that I don't care what it is; I am just always asking for sources when data is given. I am just tired of shifting fact from fiction whenever someone says something, and I need good creditable articles I can read.

" incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting."

You think that is the 1st time something like that has happened? The paranoia over voter fraud is what allows politician to engage in such activity; it is the very reason they push the notion voter fraud. They know that the voters will give up more power if they think their is a real threat. That is how it works; the more people embrace fear; the more they are willing to give up to the government. The real fraud in voter fraud is the myth of voter fraud.

I couldn't find the article I wanted, as I didn't pack it, but if you want I am more than happy to get suitable replacements when I have some time.

To determine if voter fraud really does have an impact you'd need to start crunching the numbers, and a close election does not prove it has an impact. It is that type of fear that allows them to start messing with our voting process, and that has a greater negative influence on how the votes turn out, because now we are allowing politicians more control over voting.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:39 am

Philip wrote: Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

Not to mention the e-mails leaked yesterday, one of which showing the DNC vowing only to support hillery early on during the process. Poor Bernie had no chance....even though masses of people were for him. The whole superdelegate thing made sure he was thwarted.

THAT...is where the corruption was, and that's the only place it had to be. Once she was secured as Demo candidate....the deed was done, she was all set. The only real competition she had was Bernie, and a few of possible Republican candidates...and somehow Trump buried them. It was easily foreseen that Trump would...slowly slide downhill...repeatedly shoot himself in the foot over time, scandals come out, just...steadily spiral down the toilet. Just like he has been recently.

Another example of "the establishment" keeping outsiders out.

As usual, the DNC is playing the media well...and they have massive ammo trucks for distraction....Trump. Notice the timing of "Trump horror stories" overshadowing Wiki-leaks of Hillerys email? A potentially damaging e-mail of Hillerys past is leaked by Wiki...and immediately....the news is swamped with another Trump scandal story. Hmmmmm.

It's nearly unbelievable how this election is playing out....much of the population of the US is completely tired of the "status quo" of politics. We are tired of career politicians who line their pockets from deals to shove law through, not in the best interest of the people, but in the best interest of their bank accounts. Hillery is a text book example of that....x 1000! She'll tell lies catered to a specific audience..just to get that money rolling through her foundation washing machine. We've already seen proof of that, just last week Wiki leaked an e-mail of her admitting she two faces based on audience.

And that frustration by us citizens is the only reason Trump had a chance. Not because of his brains. Not because of his class. Not because of his credibility. But because he can look at the landscape and realize the people are tired of "status quo", and he has a chance, since he's an outsider. He is opposite of status quo. He took what Ross Perot did in '92 and (but didn't call it reform like Perot did)...and ran with it.