*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16081
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1520 on: October 21, 2016, 08:27:29 PM »


I love how people's expressions and reactions change over time. It goes from "haha nice one buddy" to "i'll pretend-laugh out of politeness" to "pls trump stop trumping".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16081
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1521 on: October 21, 2016, 10:44:17 PM »
Holy shit nevermind Hillary started some serious shit:



H I L L A R Y
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1522 on: October 21, 2016, 10:48:37 PM »
Trump is a character troll that doesn't stop. The ride never ends, folks, let me tell you.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 11:02:39 PM by Rushy »

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1523 on: October 22, 2016, 02:56:43 PM »
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-donald-trump-wins-the-election-it-will-be-the-biggest-miracle-in-u-s-political-history

By comparison...

Anyone watching the American mainstream propaganda medias coverage of this election are assaulted on an hourly basis by these leftist tactics with polls showing it’s impossible for Donald Trump to win and calling him more names then the dictionary actually has definitions for—while at the same time they fail to even once tell anyone exactly what Hillary Clinton stands for, what, if any, her accomplishments are.

Standing against this massive leftist propaganda media tide attacking Donald Trump, however, are the plain and simple facts showing that Hillary’s Democratic Party has failed to generate any enthusiasm for electing her, the young voters (called Millennials) she absolutely must have for her to win are not even caring about this election, while at the same time, Donald Trump’s Republican Party has registered more voters than Hillary to elect him.

And sending Hillary and her leftist propaganda media supporters into full panic mode this past week is the record shattering voting turnout for Donald Trump throughout America—including in North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Georgia, Nebraska, and Michigan, to just name a few.

As to how Donald Trump is winning against what can only be described as the largest leftist propaganda attack against any candidate in the history of the Western world, one must first remember the previous American presidents who won their elections when a paradigm shift communication technology occurred—and that began in the 1930’s when Franklin Roosevelt became the first “radio” president, the 1960’s when John Kennedy became the first “television” president, 2008 when Barack Obama became the first “Internet” president—and today, 2016, Donald Trump becoming the first “social media” president.

“Social media” are computer-mediated technologies that allow individuals, companies, NGOs, governments, and other organizations to view, create and share information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks—and that Donald Trump has become the first US presidential candidate to master in his attempt to break the information stranglehold of the American leftist propaganda mainstream media.

To the staggering advantage Donald Trump has over Hillary Clinton in the “social media” world is evidenced by his having double the amount of Facebook users (Trump nearly 12 million to Hillary’s 5 million), a 30% advantage in Twitter users (Trump over 10 million to Hillary’s 8 million), Facebook Livestream posts with Trump having 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views compared to Hillary having 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views, YouTube Livestream showing Trump averaging 30,000 live viewers per stream while Hillary is averaging 500 live viewers per stream, Instagram where Trump has 2.2 million followers and Hillary 1.8 million, and Reddit where Trump has 197,696 subscribers and Hillary only has 24,429—but Hillary For Prison has 55,228 subscribers.

Standing opposed to Donald Trump’s staggering “social media” advantage is Hillary Clinton’s leftist propaganda leftist mainstream media supporters—such as the New York Times with 1 million readers, and CNN-MSNBC cable news with 1.7 million combined hourly viewers.

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1524 on: October 22, 2016, 04:02:16 PM »
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1525 on: October 22, 2016, 06:06:53 PM »
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.

Luckily for us, the RAND tracking polls all have Trump in the lead.

IBD/TIPP and LATIMES/USC both use the RAND method.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16081
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1526 on: October 22, 2016, 06:47:00 PM »
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.
One day... one day we shall overcome ;_;
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1527 on: October 22, 2016, 07:06:48 PM »


Obama in 2008: Elections can be rigged, I've seen people in power rig them, even democrats

Obama in 2016: No one seriously believes elections could ever be rigged haha

Interesting change in tone.


George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1528 on: October 22, 2016, 07:21:33 PM »
As far as Obama's personal experience went, he was talking about local elections, as indicated by him bringing up Chicago.  And regarding his apparent skepticism of the voting process for federal elections, maybe he just didn't know then?  He was only replying to an audience question, after all, not deliberately turning it into a major campaign issue like Trump has.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1529 on: October 22, 2016, 10:45:11 PM »
As far as Obama's personal experience went, he was talking about local elections, as indicated by him bringing up Chicago.  And regarding his apparent skepticism of the voting process for federal elections, maybe he just didn't know then?  He was only replying to an audience question, after all, not deliberately turning it into a major campaign issue like Trump has.

Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail. Interesting that he now believes it is utterly impossible to rig an election in one person's favor.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16081
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1530 on: October 22, 2016, 11:26:19 PM »
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.
Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1531 on: October 23, 2016, 01:00:45 AM »
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.
Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.

The US requires neither paper trails nor voter IDs, something most (if not all?) Western nations consider crucial to their elections.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 01:02:54 AM by Rushy »

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1532 on: October 23, 2016, 11:51:06 PM »
Interesting that he now believes it is utterly impossible to rig an election in one person's favor.

Because it is.  It's far too vast and decentralized a process for a conspiracy to simply take it over.  Even if we allow that they only need to rig the votes in a few key places, it's still impossible.  Are they going to hack all the voting machines, knowing that they're inspected before and after the voting?  Bribe or corrupt everyone overseeing the process?  And you'd have to do all this at thousands of polling stations to tip the vote in any given state.  The time and manpower to pull off a stunt like that without detection just don't exist.  Yes, voting machines have been shown to be vulnerable to attack before, but there's a world of difference between that fact and the idea that a faction could control enough of them (while remaining undetected) on the day of the election to ensure the candidate of their choice won.

Also, it's interesting that you're mostly talking about voting machines when Trump virtually never mentions them.  He just talks about "older" methods of vote-rigging, like dead people voting, illegal immigrants voting, and people voting multiple times, all things that very seldom happen and have never had any real impact on a presidential election.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1533 on: October 24, 2016, 12:46:00 AM »
It would only take one state to be swung a few percentage points in a candidate's favor to decide this election. It doesn't take a vast conspiracy. One or two urban districts spitting out bogus electronic results could swing Ohio, for example.




George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1534 on: October 24, 2016, 01:41:01 AM »
Ohio has 8,887 voting precincts.  Do you really think that you could ensure the winner by manipulating the votes in just two of those?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1535 on: October 24, 2016, 02:38:55 AM »
Ohio has 8,887 voting precincts.  Do you really think that you could ensure the winner by manipulating the votes in just two of those?

I said districts, Saddam, not precincts. I'm fairly certain you're aware those are two different things and you've just opted to misconstrue my argument in a petty attempt to dissolve my point.

Even with precincts, my point still stands. A very small percentage of counties contain a very large percentage of the population. You don't need a vast conspiracy to rig swathes of the vote. A few percentage points in a single swing state is enough to push the election into one candidate's favor.





« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 02:45:22 AM by Rushy »

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1536 on: October 24, 2016, 04:33:30 AM »
I assumed you meant precincts, because that's how voting is organized, logistically speaking.  Districts are, well, I won't say that they're irrelevant, lest some pedant pounce on me with a cry of "Aha!  You don't know what you're talking about!" but they don't really make a difference in this discussion of where and how votes are cast and how someone could interfere with that process.  Bringing up counties is absolutely irrelevant, though, and extremely misleading in this context.  Delimitation - by which I mean the process of drawing up precincts, or wards, or mini-districts, whatever you want to call them - is determined by population size, not geographic size.  For example, if you had a state that had one big urban area with a population of 100,000, and one big rural area with a population of 1,000, you wouldn't drop a polling station into each area and tell everyone to use their respective local station.  For one thing, that would make it very easy for any would-be election thieves to rig the whole thing by targeting the urban station, and for another, there's no way that all those urban residents would be able to vote with just one station, even discounting the non-voters among them.  Instead, you'd split up the urban area into a number of different precincts with their own stations.  It's a lot harder to rig that election, and everyone can vote now.

The same thing applies here.  The more densely-populated areas are going to have more precincts, and therefore more polling stations, so that they can handle the higher populations.  I'm sure it isn't perfectly even, but each precinct in a state will have roughly similar numbers of voters assigned to them.  There certainly aren't any cases where it's so absurdly lopsided that we can just figure that, oh, all they have to do is target this polling station here, this other one over here, and this last one here, and the state is all theirs.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 11:07:49 PM by George »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1537 on: October 24, 2016, 04:42:23 AM »
Saddam, do you understand how software works? It's not like anyone in their right mind would try to rig each and every machine individually when they all run the same code.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol


George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1539 on: October 24, 2016, 11:57:46 AM »
Saddam, do you understand how software works? It's not like anyone in their right mind would try to rig each and every machine individually when they all run the same code.

They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.

In other news, lol.