Kuribo64
Views: 8,599,485 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
07-19-18 09:17 PM
Guest:

0 users reading Election fraud | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Marionumber1
Posted on 12-20-17 10:35 PM (rev. 2 of 12-20-17 10:37 PM) Link | #92378
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I wonder if there is a suspicion of Ralph Nadering going on (which is... I don't agree)


Something worth noting, especially given the topic of this thread ("Election fraud"), is that the blame of Ralph Nader for Bush becoming president in 2000 is as ridiculous as the current demonization of Jill Stein. A key fact that Democrats were up in arms about back in 2000, but apparently have forgotten nowadays, is that Bush didn't win. Gore was the substantial popular vote winner, and Florida was full of pro-Bush election rigging, including voter suppression and electronic vote tampering. The real culprit for Bush's 2000 "win" is dirty political operatives and voting machine vendors who stole the election, not the convenient scapegoat of third parties.

I don't think it really ultimately matters if Jill Stein ALSO had Russian collusion;


But it's also important to note that there's absolutely no evidence of Russian collusion with Jill Stein.

they need to focus on the Trump campaign, where it's more solid and the political opponent is more powerful.


Perhaps, but whatever validity the Russian collusion claims have -- they're more valid than the hacking claims or the smears against Wikileaks, but the ongoing investigation will see if the collusion allegations actually stand up to scrutiny -- the most dangerous aspect of Trump is what his pro-corporate administration does.

I remember hearing something about Russia from my sister, don't know the full story, and all I know is that Russia really hates Hillary or at least doesn't trust her. Maybe they view Donald Trump as a useful idiot?


I don't doubt that Russia hates Hillary and most likely preferred Trump. That does not, however, prove that they would do "anything" to get Trump elected. Motive on its own does not establish a crime, like election hacking, for which there's no evidence.

There is, however, abundant evidence of election hacking in 2016 by private right-wing voting machine vendors to get Trump in office.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-23-17 07:47 PM (rev. 3 of 12-23-17 07:50 PM) Link | #92449
Ultimately, I think the Florida recount is not exactly the most "neutral impartial" thing to have happened with Bush's election but I think Ralph Nader did have a role to play in siphoning votes away from Al Gore that could've at least given Al Gore more of a cushion for winning districts that could've been the difference for tipping states to blue... not sure on the numbers of that, I just remember one of the history textbooks I read said that "Ralph Nader is Gore's real nemesis", and that line stuck for me.

I doubt there is any evidence for collusion with Jill Stein. At this point, I feel they're just reaching. Clinton should just get her hands off this, polls show she's as unpopular as Trump (though IMO Trump's approval is too high).

Not sure on the impact of Russian hacking, but I think Russians have somewhat at least cooperated or colluded with Trump given the whole Flynn thing and Trump's overall dishonesty, especially regarding Putin. Every word that comes out of Trump's stupid fat mouth is either a lie, a childish putrid remark, or a smug self-congratulatory quip. I do think Republicans are good at manipulating districts through gerrymandering, and our nation is just filled to the brim with idiots who never fail to surprise us. People support Republicans despite their party base consisting of science deniers, science haters, haters of the working class, haters of the environment, fundamentalists, racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, Neo-Nazis, former KKK members, sexists, and of course Roy Moore and a bragger of groping women; they seem to do anything, even scrawl on shoddily written tax bills or back pedophiles (Roy Moore has went past benefit of doubt) just as long as they don't get a Democrat in office. It's sad, really, that a party relies on those kinds of a rancid mix of anti-science and bigotry called "conservatism" and "OMG not politically correct" has a lot of power and they're attractive enough for a substantial amount of a populace to vote for just because they promise jobs.

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-23-17 08:47 PM Link | #92452
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Ultimately, I think the Florida recount is not exactly the most "neutral impartial" thing to have happened with Bush's election but I think Ralph Nader did have a role to play in siphoning votes away from Al Gore that could've at least given Al Gore more of a cushion for winning districts that could've been the difference for tipping states to blue... not sure on the numbers of that, I just remember one of the history textbooks I read said that "Ralph Nader is Gore's real nemesis", and that line stuck for me.


"not exactly the most "neutral impartial" thing to have happened" is quite the understatement. The 2000 Florida election was blatantly stolen by Florida Republicans and the voting machine manufacturers, yet Democrats persist in blaming Nader instead. Saying that "Ralph Nader is Gore's real nemesis" strikes me as a propaganda line that wants to avoid the uncomfortable reality of widespread election fraud. However, it's also unintentionally revealing: Nader is the one Democrats would rather blame, since they have no intention of mounting an actual resistance to the corporatism and anti-democratic tactics of the GOP.

I doubt there is any evidence for collusion with Jill Stein. At this point, I feel they're just reaching. Clinton should just get her hands off this, polls show she's as unpopular as Trump (though IMO Trump's approval is too high).


Agreed.

Not sure on the impact of Russian hacking


Nor am I, though we should all refrain from giving it any credence until an impartial analysis comes out (which I doubt will ever happen). US intelligence agencies literally exist to subvert democracy for the sake of corporate profit.

but I think Russians have somewhat at least cooperated or colluded with Trump given the whole Flynn thing and Trump's overall dishonesty, especially regarding Putin.


The Flynn indictment, however, is being widely misinterpreted. Rather than Russia influencing him, he was trying to convince Russia not to retaliate over sanctions that Obama imposed for the specious hacking allegations. His indictment also included a charge for lobbying Russia to veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements; if anything, this is on behalf of Israel, not Russia. All this begs the question: if there's collusion with Russia, why would Flynn need to lobby them?

Every word that comes out of Trump's stupid fat mouth is either a lie, a childish putrid remark, or a smug self-congratulatory quip. I do think Republicans are good at manipulating districts through gerrymandering, and our nation is just filled to the brim with idiots who never fail to surprise us. People support Republicans despite their party base consisting of science deniers, science haters, haters of the working class, haters of the environment, fundamentalists, racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, Neo-Nazis, former KKK members, sexists, and of course Roy Moore and a bragger of groping women; they seem to do anything, even scrawl on shoddily written tax bills or back pedophiles (Roy Moore has went past benefit of doubt) just as long as they don't get a Democrat in office. It's sad, really, that a party relies on those kinds of a rancid mix of anti-science and bigotry called "conservatism" and "OMG not politically correct" has a lot of power and they're attractive enough for a substantial amount of a populace to vote for just because they promise jobs.


Yeah, Republicans are quite good at manipulating people to support their agenda. It doesn't help, of course, that the Democrats fail to present a truly progressive agenda, since given the choice between two parties that don't support their economic interests, social conservatives are going to go for a party that supports their backward social values. I truly believe that legitimate progressivism could win over traditional GOP voters, and Bernie Sanders believed that as well, supporting the idea of finding certain areas of common ground with Trump supporters.

But however skilled Republicans are at manipulating people, they're even better at manipulating votes. The inordinate electoral success of the GOP owes just as much, if not more, to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and persistent electronic vote rigging ("the red shift") as it does to political factors. With fair elections, the whole two-party facade would collapse: Republicans would lose governmental control, Democrats would no longer have GOP obstructionism as an excuse for subverting a real left-wing agenda, progressives would finally wake up to their deception, and actual progressives like Bernie could win primaries without having those stolen.

Belsaw
Posted on 12-24-17 10:13 AM Link | #92471
Posted by Marionumber1
I truly believe that legitimate progressivism could win over traditional GOP voters, and Bernie Sanders believed that as well, supporting the idea of finding certain areas of common ground with Trump supporters.

But however skilled Republicans are at manipulating people, they're even better at manipulating votes. The inordinate electoral success of the GOP owes just as much, if not more, to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and persistent electronic vote rigging ("the red shift") as it does to political factors. With fair elections, the whole two-party facade would collapse: Republicans would lose governmental control, Democrats would no longer have GOP obstructionism as an excuse for subverting a real left-wing agenda, progressives would finally wake up to their deception, and actual progressives like Bernie could win primaries without having those stolen.


Why not start on a local level (village/town/city) then move to a State level? If Democrats or Republicans cry "Muh Russia", they'll just look like corporate fools who want to manipulate votes. One of the reasons Hillary lost is because she demonized voters whereas Bernie actually catered to huge amounts of people. What Bernie-style and Jill Stein-style local candidates need to do is go out and reach out to people, ask them what they want, answer their questions, promise them what they want, and keep that promise without demonizing voters as "deplorable Russian trolls" or "libtarded freaks". They also need to cleverly respond to manipulation done by Democrats or Republicans. They need to point out the manipulation is just a bunch of empty promises done to get more votes. Bascally, using the opponents' strategies against them while also maintaining your integrity.

Actual progressive candidates need to also focus on the economy and infrastructure. But not everyone is fully knowledgeable on issues such as these so if something sounds confusing they'll just vote the candidate that makes the most sense to them even if the candidate is actually making incorrect assertions. Again, by going out and chatting with as much of the populace as possible it'll not just secure more potential voters by informing them of the true and (hopefully) sincere intentions but also dismantle any echo chambers that exist. This would mean a candidate may have to adjust their platform a bit if the people will it (as long as it's something reasonable and not like "make lynching blacks legal again"). This is where Democrats and Republicans usually fail. They usually serve corporate interests rather people's interests. Hence why nothing gets done or what does get done usually makes problems worse.

Oh and in case you're still wondering, I'm referring to local level elections. We need to start grassroots.

Posted by Marionumber1
if anything, this is on behalf of Israel, not Russia


Speaking of that is it true if Trump or really any Demoratic or Republican politician were to be investigated for collusion with or ties to Israel or Saudi Arabia it would be grounds for impeachment? But of course, no one wants to do that. But I think some politicians have already been indicted for ties to Qatar.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Islamophobes


Once again, I usually don't want to talk about religion but I think you mean anti-Muslim bigots. "Islamophobia" does not exist. Religions are ideas and it is not irrational to fear ideas. Especially a religion that espouses violent homophobia, violent misogyny, and violent transphobia. Sure, Judaism and Christianity were like this a long time ago but then they went through the Enlightment. Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a Domionist than an Islamist in the United States but that's just the US. In other countries like Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and even Thailand, it's a whole different story. It should also be mentioned that during the 1980's it was the Right who accused the Left of "Islamophobia" for opposing US support to the Afghan Munahideen.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-26-17 03:36 PM Link | #92517
I know I mean "anti-Muslim bigots". It all boils down to word choice that I find is a little pedantic. I do hope you know what I mean. I'm a huge critic of Islam's ideas, even a critic of "no pork or fast for X amount of days" rules (I find them arbitrary). But the people themselves, no, and if the religion makes them happy and peaceful and loving, then that's good. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that the books these religious people read, though, are, to put it politely, are incompatible with the standards of today's society (no criticizing it, subjugate women and homosexuals, intolerance, cursing innocent people for what their ancestors do, and so on).

Belsaw
Posted on 01-19-18 03:36 PM Link | #92881
I see. The whole pork prohibition dates back to Judaism and I agree it's pretty silly.

Anyway, there's a supposed classified memo shown to the House of Representatives that allegedly reveals abuses committed by the unconstitutional FISA courts. It could very well be fake, considering Republicans are pushing it. If it is real, then I don't know what to say about it. It could have evidence for impeaching Donald Trump. It could have evidence for indicting Hillary Clinton. I really don't know which is why the memo should be released so that the public can make a judgement on its authenticity.

But there are a couple things I've noticed. Apparently, it's just a Republican talking point but if so then why haven't they released the memo if it would help them? Could it have information incriminating the RNC? Could it be fake after all? But there is another thing I also find very suspicious. Edward Snowden and the ACLU both tweeted out their opposition to FISA and their support for releasing the memo. Because of this, the diehard "#ImStilWithHer" Clintonite corporatists accused both Snowden and the ACLU of being "Russian bots". I could see why Snowden would face such accusations since he is in exile in Russia (although he has criticized Putin's human rights abuses and initially planned to finally seek asylum in Ecuador). But the fricking ACLU? Seriously?

I guess this just shows much these so-called "Hillary Progressives" (more like Neoliberal capitalists) care about civil rights; they'll even accuse the ACLU of being a "Russian bot" for daring to criticize FISA. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these Clintonites would love to use FISA to spy on "misogynistic hate speech" ie criticism of Hillary. And of course, there was a bunch of Obama worship and Trump worship. Identity politics at its finest. I'm glad I never bothered to create a Twitter account. (Christ, I really need to stop torturing myself with browsing that cancerfest.)

But still, why all this "Muh Russia" accusations? Like I said, I find it suspicious and it could imply the memo is legit after all. It might even incriminate the DNC. Heck, it could very well incriminate both parties which would explain Republicans' hesitance and Democrats' resistance to releasing it.

I kinda do wish Putin was overthrown and replaced with a DNC shill just to see what other country would serve as the boogeyman. China? Ecuador? Equatorial Guinea? Iran? Serbia? Syria? I think it's time to vote in independent progessives like Bernie Sanders in this year's election. I'm apparently a "conservative" now just for disagreeing with the corporatist establishment. Ironic, considering the establishment in itself is basically right-wing at this point.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 02-16-18 05:42 PM Link | #93307

Marionumber1
Posted on 02-16-18 06:13 PM Link | #93308
This does appear more legitimate than the past 1.5 years of evidence-free proclamations about Russian meddling, given that some emails are actually quoted, though I remain skeptical given how much of this case relies solely on what intelligence agencies concluded. Either way, whatever influence this had on the election pales in comparison to how US insiders sabotaged the voting process itself. For all the talk about protecting the 2018 midterms, the Russia story has been a marvelous distraction from the already well-documented threat of domestic electronic vote rigging that continually benefits Republicans.

Marionumber1
Posted on 02-17-18 10:04 PM Link | #93315
And by the way: https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/ex-cia-director-thinks-us-hypocrisy-about-election-meddling-is-hilarious

Fox's Laura Ingraham unsurprisingly introduced former CIA Director James Woolsey as "an old friend" in a recent interview about Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 alleged members of a Russian troll farm, in which Woolsey unsurprisingly talked about how dangerous Russian "disinformation" is and Ingraham unsurprisingly said that everyone should really be afraid of China. What was surprising, though, was what happened at the end of the interview.

"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Ingraham asked in response to Woolsey's Russia remarks.

"Oh, probably," Woolsey said with a grin. "But it was for the good of the system in order to avoid the communists from taking over. For example, in Europe, in '47, '48, '49, the Greeks and the Italians we CIA-"

"We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other people's elections, Jim?"

Woolsey smiled and said said "Well...", followed by a joking incoherent mumble, adding, "Only for a very good cause."

And then they both laughed.


What Russia is being accused of, based on thin to no evidence, is treated as completely acceptable for the CIA to do on dozens of well-documented occasions, even into the present day.

For that matter, they're not just manipulating elections in foreign countries, but right here in the USA: http://marionumber1.blogspot.com/2017/05/electronic-voting-and-deep-state.html

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 03-26-18 10:32 PM Link | #93797
So, Cambridge Analytica Facebook thing is, well, a thing.

Any thoughts?

GalacticPirate
Posted on 03-27-18 05:39 AM Link | #93803
I'm starting to wonder if Trumps acts like a culprit because he is guilty of treason, or just because he's an idiot :P

Marionumber1
Posted on 03-27-18 10:46 AM Link | #93805
Posted by Article III of the US Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Thankfully, the US has not declared war on Russia, so they're not an enemy under the law. As such, even if there was actual evidence of collusion, Trump could not be guilty of treason.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 03-28-18 03:24 PM Link | #93830
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
So, Cambridge Analytica Facebook thing is, well, a thing.

Any thoughts?


Zuckerburg deserves to be jailed because of how many lives he has outright ruined with his awful corporation sliminess but because he's a rich CEO of course all he gets is a slap in the wrist.

Marionumber1
Posted on 03-28-18 11:44 PM Link | #93845
Data mining has a lot of troubling implications for election integrity. Beyond just targeting voters for propaganda campaigns like Cambridge Analytica did, it also ties into the direct vote tampering that I initially discussed in this thread. According to a former whistleblower from Karl Rove's election stealing operation, the main IT culprit SmarTech enlisted multiple data mining companies:

[thumbnail]

With data on every voter in the US, election riggers can know which precincts are ripest for vote manipulation and who should be illegally kicked off the voter rolls. That kind of tactic has almost certainly been employed by Rove's operation.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 03-29-18 07:19 PM Link | #93860
"implications" sounds like a little too soft to describe what's going on, isn't it?

Marionumber1
Posted on 03-29-18 07:54 PM Link | #93862
Fair enough, I guess I should have said "consequences", since it's an ongoing threat to democracy. The mass exploitation of personal data by election riggers has been happening since at least 2000, when we saw black voters being intentionally removed from voter rolls in Florida and Tennessee, and it's only getting more precisely targeted.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 03-30-18 04:08 PM Link | #93875
Also, how do you think this affects the whole Russia investigation? I'm now thinking Russia might've not have a big role as previous thought. I think the Cambridge Analytical is much more direct evidence.

I hope people wise up and just don't vote Republican. Democrats, with all their rich tomfoolery, aren't as big of a threat to democracy as the party of gerry-mandering, pro-Voter ID, deportation-happy, and pro-pedophiles.

Marionumber1
Posted on 03-31-18 10:01 AM Link | #93891
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Also, how do you think this affects the whole Russia investigation? I'm now thinking Russia might've not have a big role as previous thought. I think the Cambridge Analytical is much more direct evidence.


That's the same thing I've been arguing for a while. The "evidence" of Russian hacking has always been virtually nonexistent, resting on nothing more than the proclamations of intelligence agencies (read: paid liars and warmongers). We have proof that the Trump campaign was paying for propaganda efforts like Cambridge Analytica, and a lot of evidence stretching back decades that right-wing operatives here in the US have been suppressing voters and rigging machines. Domestic operatives do just fine rigging elections on their own; there hasn't been a need to enlist Russia's help.

I hope people wise up and just don't vote Republican. Democrats, with all their rich tomfoolery, aren't as big of a threat to democracy as the party of gerry-mandering, pro-Voter ID, deportation-happy, and pro-pedophiles.


True, but they are often willing to stand by and let the Republicans steamroll them with their anti-democratic tactics. Almost all Democrats dismiss rigged voting machines as "conspiracy theory" and never acknowledge the issue, even as it continues to cost them presidential elections and dozens of congressional seats. And on the topic of the Republicans being pro-pedophile, why weren't the Democrats doing more to shed light on the Franklin scandal, which involved elite Republican pedophiles who were protected from prosecution?

Democrats aren't as much of an overt evil as Republicans, but by passively allowing it, they don't serve particularly well as an opposition party.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - Election fraud New reply

Page rendered in 0.028 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 29, rows: 230/230, time: 0.015 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.