Election Day and Results

[TLDR20]

When were people thinking SEC Clinton was going to lose the popular vote? I'll admit I wasn't following the election closely (because I thought she was going to win), but all the "rigging" I was tracking was from people worried about voting in general.

Personally, I never said, or thought, that the general election was rigged (although the Democratic primary seems pretty suspect) and yes, I do think the side that lost needs to deal.

Well I only have anecdotal evidence. People did say it though. I am 100% sure I can easily find posts on here where it is inferred that the EC was rigged for Clinton.

I want inferring you said anything.

 

[Grunt]

Well I only have anecdotal evidence. People did say it though. I am 100% sure I can easily find posts on here where it is inferred that the EC was rigged for Clinton.

I want inferring you said anything.

That's the main reason that I wish all states had a mandate to place their electoral votes where the people voted and not allow for the electors to vote their personal desires.

Hopefully, that would end a lot of those accusations. At least until people found something else to fuss about.

 

[TLDR20]

When were people thinking SEC Clinton was going to lose the popular vote? I'll admit I wasn't following the election closely (because I thought she was going to win), but all the "rigging" I was tracking was from people worried about voting in general.

Personally, I never said, or thought, that the general election was rigged (although the Democratic primary seems pretty suspect) and yes, I do think the side that lost needs to deal.

Here are people in this thread talking about the EC being rigged:

Yes, by the electoral college.

It's still not over, I'm not celebrating with my victory copenhagen just yet. I have them tied in PA and NH aka Florida 2000 style.

She has MN and ME.

Its still anyone's game in WI and MI too but yes the system is rigged...no matter who wins.

Just because your horse wins doesn't mean there isn't cheating....

I still think Trump was the only Republican with enough backbone to take her on.
Cruz annoys people and "Little Marco" isn't experienced enough to take her on.


Yes, via the media and the electoral college all or nothing format.

 

[Il Duce]

Roger. The EC is one of the only reasons people care (from an election standpoint) about the kinds of states you and I are from. As we've seen over the last few years, if you ignore the real and imagined grievances of important social demographics, it can cause reactions that we didn't expect and don't want.

One of my aggravations about this election (in which I voted for... no one) is this whole "OMG our candidate didn't win!! CHANGE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude, especially from people who probably don't have the slightest understanding about how our political system works and why it's set up the way it is.

Yeah, I'm finding that pretty messed up as well. I find the most meaningful reform and convincing people can do is on their own side and I feel like the Democratic side(s) of this election cycle are still by-and-large in the denial/anger/bargaining stages of grief. I think a reasonable assessment of causation and a workable reform plan is a ways away - if ever.

One of the things I think that exacerbates the problem is how close this election was. That means almost any answer can be 'right' in the sense it might of turned out differently. I think that gives people more incentive NOT to change than to change - which from my partisan viewpoint is a bad thing.

 

[DA SWO]

Here are people in this thread talking about the EC being rigged:

I still dislike the all or nothing format.
I wish the EC was tied to House Districts, that way you'd eliminate the all or nothing system.

 

[ThunderHorse]

The all or nothing system is dependent on the state. Granted 48 states go all or nothing.

 

[Grunt]

I still dislike the all or nothing format.
I wish the EC was tied to House Districts, that way you'd eliminate the all or nothing system.

I could live with that system. In fact, I would like it.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Huh. An interesting comparison on how both Obama and Trump have a habit of not just dismissing those who disagree with their world views, but both tend to do so in a rather condescending way.

One is subtle and smooth, the other coarse and blunt -- but the smug contempt for all who disagree is identical.

One disagreeable thing Obama and Trump have in common

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Humble...meet pie.
.
.
.
Smug dinks.

It could be said that 44 seconds into this clip is when Trump said, "fuck it...and you'.

The final clip is yet another reason why I just cannot stand what Social Media has done to what should be a respected office. I don't want a "Hip, with it and now" president...and that bullshit all began in 1991, as I sat in my room in Okinawa watching Arsenio Hall, and there arrived William Jefferson Clinton, playing the sax on T.V.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Looks, there's a snowflake....

 

[Ooh-Rah]

<shhhhh - this is a "secret report", don't tell anyone>

In a secret assessment shared with key senators, CIA briefers said it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, the Washington Post reported, citing officials.

CIA concludes Russia intervened in election to help Trump, officials say

 

[RackMaster]

But letting that creepy Nazi sympathizer George Soros interfere is alright. And yes I know the source is from the Russian's.

Soros-fronted orgs among groups calling for anti-Trump protests (VIDEO)

 

[AWP]

This election is an STD the country can't shake.

 

[AWP]

I ran across these two stories as mentioned in an earlier post. I found the timing of the stories odd to say the least.

The announcement that the president asked the intelligence community to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the 2016 election. The story was filed Friday Dec. 9 at 3:59 PM EST. Okay cool.

Obama orders review of 2016 election cyber attacks

And here's the one announcing/ leaking the findings of the intelligence community. The story was filed Sat. Dec. 10 at 3:00 PM EST.

Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials

Less than 24 hours? Maybe nothing, but damn...."perception's reality."

The best part to me is from the second link:

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

The conclusion came the same day the president announced the request? WTH? Did they make the announcement because they knew the story was about to be leaked or what? Again, maybe there's nothing here but great job providing fodder for the masses. Perception is reality.

 

[Etype]

Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials

I love how many times the article says "intelligence analysts" or "intelligence agencies" without actually citing something specific. The only time they cite a specific organization is to say that a CIA spokeswoman said the Russians have denied the claim.

Fake news is the flavor of the week, this article seems to be right on time.

 

[Gunz]

It's smoke without the gun. But even the faintest wisps of smoke give the grieving Left something to latch onto to explain this horrible anomaly of injustice...and to deny the shocking reality that there are still a lot of people in this country who refuse to drink from the fountain of progressive globalization, world-without-borders, Euro-socialism and all the other emasculating bullshit that comes with it.

Ps. I like Russians.

 

[Marauder06]

So what's not getting investigated is not the alleged malfeasance at the heart of the leaks, but that the leaks happened? That's interesting. Also-

A second official familiar with the report said the intelligence analysts' conclusion about Russia's motives does not mean the intelligence community believes that Moscow's efforts altered or significantly affected the outcome of the election.

No effect on the election? Russia: worst. meddlers. ever.

Do we think that Russia... and China... and Iran... and, well, everyone who can, DOESN'T try to meddle in US elections? We're the most powerful and influential country in the world, and every powerful nation "meddles in" and attempts to influence everyone else's politics. If we really want to look at whose influence most shaped the outcome of the election, a good place to start might be the Democratic Party.

 

[Etype]

So what's not getting investigated is not the alleged malfeasance at the heart of the leaks, but that the leaks happened? That's interesting. Also-



No effect on the election? Russia: worst. meddlers. ever.

Do we think that Russia... and China... and Iran... and, well, everyone who can, DOESN'T try to meddle in US elections? We're the most powerful and influential country in the world, and every powerful nation "meddles in" and attempts to influence everyone else's politics. If we really want to look at whose influence most shaped the outcome of the election, a good place to start might be the Democratic Party.

Your first point requires the assumption that it is some sort of legitimate leak. But I agree, if we take it at face value, there is another problem in play.

On the second point- I think if Russia were to meddle with the elections, there goal may be to simply undermine the legitimacy of the process. If they were involved, then they have succeeded in this goal.

My blind assumptions on the matter-
I'm sure there were plenty of election related questions on the Russian collectors PIR lists, just as I'm sure we were equally interested in past Russian elections. I would assume that we knew the Russians were interested and this may have become misconstrued as meddling. Again, this is just me snowballing.

 

[Marauder06]

Your first point requires the assumption that it is some sort of legitimate leak. But I agree, if we take it at face value, there is another problem in play.

On the second point- I think if Russia were to meddle with the elections, there goal may be to simply undermine the legitimacy of the process. If they were involved, then they have succeeded in this goal.

My blind assumptions on the matter-
I'm sure there were plenty of election related questions on the Russian collectors PIR lists, just as I'm sure we were equally interested in past Russian elections. I would assume that we knew the Russians were interested and this may have become misconstrued as meddling. Again, this is just me snowballing.

I don't know what you mean by "legitimate leak." I think leak by nature are illegitimate, and if this one was legit, why would it be under investigation?

If the goal of interfering with the election was to call legitimacy of the process into question, I think we did that quite well enough without any outside interference. We had PE Trump claiming the process was "rigged" before voting began, and afterwards, SEC Clinton's supporters wanted to toss out the Electoral College. I don't think we needed Russia's help for that.

I also want to make it clear that I totally believe that Russia tried to shape the US election in their favor, because that's what all great powers do. And I'm not happy about it. But I question their ability to change the outcome in the slightest. I think they, like the rest of the world, predicted a Clinton win and their ability to generate mistrust with the system would have been far better served with a Clinton victory (i.e. supporting fires for "the election was rigged).

 

[Etype]

I don't know what you mean by "legitimate leak." I think leak by nature are illegitimate, and if this one was legit, why would it be under investigation?

If the goal of interfering with the election was to call legitimacy of the process into question, I think we did that quite well enough without any outside interference. We had PE Trump claiming the process was "rigged" before voting began, and afterwards, SEC Clinton's supporters wanted to toss out the Electoral College. I don't think we needed Russia's help for that.

I also want to make it clear that I totally believe that Russia tried to shape the US election in their favor, because that's what all great powers do. And I'm not happy about it. But I question their ability to change the outcome in the slightest. I think they, like the rest of the world, predicted a Clinton win and their ability to generate mistrust with the system would have been far better served with a Clinton victory (i.e. supporting fires for "the election was rigged).

By legitimate leak, I meant that there actually was a leak. The article doesn't convince me that anything was actually leaked- it's vague and doesn't reveal specifics or contain anything that strikes me as credible.

Jill Stein "assured" us that there was Russian involvement in our election. Well, Soviet agents of influence planted the seeds of communism that morphed into her green party- so I guess they did.

I think your second and third paragraphs make great points.