2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since recorded history, when one person has competed with another for "a" position, there has been bargaining, trading, buying, of votes. It will always be that way. The only thing we can hope for is to minimize its level.

You will never be able to eliminate it as long as there is any "human" element involved. Even today in 2016, it's based on the "honor system" and unfortunately, the number of politicians with true honor are beginning to dwindle, IMO.
 
Then I expect that no one here will continue feigning surprise or disappointment, or an incredulity toward one side or the other, about it from here after.

That's a relief.

Do I think it happens? Yup. Do I think all parties do what they can to get a leg up? Yup. Do I think they should get called out when it happens? Yup.
 
Love history.

Beginning on October 27, 1787 the Federalist Papers were first published in the New York press under the signature of "Publius". These papers are generally considered to be one of the most important contributions to political thought made in America. The essays appeared in bookform in 1788, with an introduction by Hamilton. Subsequently they were printed in manyeditions and translated to several languages. The pseudonym "Publius" was used by three man: Jay, Madison and Hamilton. Jay was responsible for only a few of the 85 articles. The papers were meant to be influential in the campaign for the adoption of the Constitution by New York State. But the authors not only discussed the issues of the constitution, but also many general problems of politics.


The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
 
Pat speaks the truff!
I lol'd

The only thing I'll say about the "liberal news media" being unfair and its right in line with the anchor:

There should be equal coverage and objective reporting- but if one candidate consistently does new and progressively bat shit crazy-er things or makes a point to be a national headline with some seriously idiotic behavior, and the other one doesn't, then what do you expect? Is your expectation that the media says, "Well, we don't have anything new on Clinton- I mean sure, she's a criminal and the emails and Benghazi and she's an evil lizard driving a meat skeleton and she's married to Bill Clinton)- but we need to be fair in our coverage; so let's ignore that Trump made fun of a disabled reporter and is threatening to sue people that are potentially sexual assault victims and referenced the size of his hands (implication being the size of his penis was adequate) on national TV and said John McCain wasn't a war hero cause he got caught and said that he can do whatever he wants to beautiful women up to and including grabbing them by the pussy and said he would create a deportation force and got into a twitter war with a Gold Star family and then said 'If I was in the office your son would be alive' and also wants to ban/register muslims and build a wall on our southern border that Mexico has to pay for."


It seems like Pat Buchanon's saying "Why aren't you guys as rough on HRC? UNFAIR! RIGGED! THE LIBERAL IS BEING MEAN TO MY FRIEND YOU SHOULD ONLY REPORT GOOD THINGS AND IGNORE BAD THINGS UNLESS THEY'RE ABOUT HRC!!!" and seems to miss the fact that the reason she doesn't get the same media coverage because she doesn't produce the same volume of material. Know how many Presbyterian churches there are in Topeka, Kansas? 5 at least. Know which one gets the attention and the other four get none? Because the Westboro Baptist Church is in Topeka. The media isn't unfair or biased because no one reports bad shit on the other 4, but that's probably because those other churches aren't protesting funerals or putting out hate propaganda. The WBC puts out more outrageous material.

In the end, Pat's little tirade is the death rattle of a campaign that will most likely lose. Their legacy will be making excuses and a dearth of quips that will be pure comedy and a how-NOT-to manual on running for president in 10 years.
 
Regarding online voting, these articles go into a bit more detail and you non-geek types should be able to follow along.

More than 30 states offer online voting, but experts warn it isn’t secure

Experts say that states will not be able to protect themselves from experienced hackers, including foreign countries who could meddle with a U.S. election. That is one of the reasons that Ron Rivest, an Internet security expert and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gives online voting security “a big fat F.”

“The Chinese are very good at getting into everybody’s systems,” Rivest said. “They’ve attacked most of the Fortune 500 companies successfully.”

Ron Rivest is the man when it comes to security. Every single one of you, anyone who has ever used the Net, has benefitted from his work in cryptography. Ron even developed the ThreeBallot Voting System in 2006. If he says online voting isn't secure, then it isn't secure.

NIST Activities on UOCAVA Voting

Even NIST recommends against online voting.

The study concluded that Internet voting systems cannot currently be audited with a comparable level of confidence in the audit results as those for polling place systems. Malware on voters' personal computers poses a serious threat that could compromise the secrecy or integrity of voters' ballots. And, the United States currently lacks a public infrastructure for secure electronic voter authentication. Therefore, NIST's research results indicate that additional research and development is needed to overcome these challenges before secure Internet voting will be feasible. NIST plans to continue to work with our partners in the public and private sectors on these issues.

NIST and IEEE (the guys who standardize computing technologies) are still working on developing a standard for electronic voting and they've been in committee since 2014.

Project 1622

The bottom line is if your electronic systems are susceptible to manipulation there's no way in the world something online will be secure.
 
Cvz0SVQWEAAidQP.jpg


So this is apparently the real one floating around...I'll place the fake ones in the humor thread: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvz0SVQWEAAidQP.jpg
 
Rubio is excatly what's wrong with government. Instead of not writing dumb shit or God forbid taking cyber security SERIOUSLY, his recommendation is just ignore it. Where are the investigative journalists?

Vote out the damn incumbents!

Rubio warns GOP to stay silent on WikiLeaks hack
Disagree,
The Republicans as a whole need to be quiet and let the Dems attempt damage control.
 
A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?

Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)? Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win? Perhaps something else entirely?
Chicago machine adding ballots until they have enough to win.
Stealing a primary (ask Bernie) by rigging adjudications.
Super Delegates who vote for their favorite, primaries be damned (watch the Republicans emulate this tactic).
 
The first voter fraud arrest in the 2016 election was just made in Des Moines. You'll never guess what happened next!
Voter fraud suspect arrested in Des Moines

The irony is delicious

A Des Moines woman has been charged with Election Misconduct, a Class D felony, after allegedly voting twice for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Terri Rote says she was afraid her first ballot for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

"I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment," says Rote. "The polls are rigged."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top