Hurlshort

Let's break this dumb list down... Ok, so there are three examples here. They aren't clear which party the dead people voted for. Ok, this has more potential. Although it sounds like whoever was behind this fraud messed up by not letting the fraudulent voters know what there job was. How many of them successfully lobbied a democratic vote? 700 people cast two ballots! That's terrible. Who did they vote for? Who organized this? I'm going to stop there, but Pennsylvania actually come up two more times, so it is clear that they've got issues. But are they rigging it for one side? I mean, sure, you could assume allowing illegals to vote is clearly an attempt to get more Democrat votes. Except no one seems to have let those illegals know what their role is in this. It is also pretty clear that the registration is tied to driver's licenses, which is more of an example of dumb bureaucratic paperwork practices than actual fraud. So basically all of these examples don't clearly favor one party, they seem highly disorganized, and in a nation of 300 million, they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm going to go with stupidity over fraud.

If Clinton really were rigging the election, she is doing a terrible job. Why is Donald Trump a shoe-in to win without a rigged election? He has alienated multiple voting bases with his words. What facts do you have to support that? edit: What I'm trying to say is, given a decent candidate running for the Republican party, you might have a good argument. But Trump is not a decent candidate and it doesn't take election rigging to predict he has an above average chance of not winning.

I love this place.

My condolences WD.

I feel bad for that Martinez guy. Congrats Cubs!

I hope GD is watching this. Rajai again.

It's like they didn't even consult NASA about this stuff.

This is a crazy game 7. I'm having all sorts of trouble with the calls Maddon is making. Hendricks is rolling, bring in Lester with a runner on? Lester is rolling, bring in Chapman in the 8th? Have Baez bunt with a 3-2 count?

Hah, I love the children's book part of your post, but worry about the editing of angry female's text part.

I'm rooting against Chapman but for the Cubs. So yeah.

That isnt really an option though. Being a terrible person will not get you arrested. Plus his doctor says he is the healthiest 70 year old ever. Clinton has much higher odds of struggling to stay in office, whether it is legal trouble or her health.

I just don't know if I'm read for another commitment at this time. We can still be friends.

I'd actually probably enjoy a Fallout MMO by Zenimax. Elder Scrolls Online is a pretty solid MMO, and it stands to reason they have learned enough to make it even better.

In education, the vice principals are the ones always trying to make changes and introduce new stuff because they need to prove they deserve to step up into the principal spot. It sucks. They also tend to come and go quickly.

The Cavs overcame a 3-1 deficit to win the NBA championship, and now the Indians may have the same thing happen against them. The beautiful narrative of sports.

I ordered a microphone, going to give a podcast a try to add to my new website. I was going to call it a Hopcast, but that is already taken.

Sweet, a new podcast to listen to on my way to work.

I just don't get how these people email like it is private. Nothing you do online is private.

Picked up Wolfenstein: The Old Blood to scratch the halloween itch. It's loads of fun.

wait what Your decoding skills could use some work. I automatically read that as emaciated because given the context, that was the only word that worked.

I've been fighting Wordpress all day. I could start over with my host's website builder, but I'm concerned I'll get in over my head that way. Bleh, it's a mess.

What are your other 19?

Mr. Right - Surprising quirky little movie, had that whole Grosse Point Blanke feel to it. Sam Rockman was fantastic, and the development of Steve probably made the movie for me. I guess it's a romcom, but more com than rom.

I'm still ENFP, but a mediator. I guess I'm more insecure or something now.

What? He asked Johnson sensible questions, and Johnson didn't have answers. This is the sort of thing that should happen at the big debates and usually doesn't. Often the candidates aren't challenged when they respond with no substance to policy questions. Johnson was pressed and he couldn't handle it. He asked about taxation. Johnson told him what would likely happen if he were in office, what direction he would hope to sway the congress, and what would be a realistic scenario. But he didn't like that answer, so pushed further into the "If you were all powerful" scenario, which Johnson gave his honest opinion about taxes in general, namely wanting a federal consumption tax. Then the guy insulted him and continued to badger about abolishing taxes (he says it about 8 times.) Johnson responded with hostility. Hardly a surprise and I don't see how you can accuse him of not having substance when his first answer was very clear in what he would do if in power in regards to taxes. As an aside, the interviewer is wrong about the consumption tax being panned by economists (although really, he avoids addressing it by just harping on abolition.) Greenspan suggested the same thing a decade ago.