The US Election, Part XI

[Guard Dog]

No kidding. Let's be done with this BS and hope for a little less demagoguery and a little more liberty in 2020. 

[licketysplit]

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/us-election-jill-stein-challenge-results-swing-states-ofwisconsin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

US election: Jill Stein to challenge results in swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania amid claims of cyber attacks

 

 

I must admit that this years elections have been very entertaining train wrecks to watch, even though they diminish my hope towards democratic governance.

 

When Trump doubts the results, it's a threat to our democracy. When libs and independants do it, it's perfectly ok. I am so over the media shilling for the left. 

[Malcador]

Well, it's a bit different from doing it before the vote as opposed to after.

[BruceVC]

So.. this neo nazio goes out and kills a white gal. I don't think he understands what race I=he is supposed to be hatin'. Tragic for the woman and he is right where he belongs.

volo !!!  This is a highly offensive post how can you possibly suggest.....oh wait....okay, you are condemning this deed. Okay my bad, carry on volo  

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/neo-nazi-thomas-mair-gets-whole-life-sentence-for-mp-jo-coxs-murder-10668829

Guys a chilling reminder that Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are real and do negatively impact our lives

It's truly tragic and heinous what happened to her, and forgive me for seeming unsensitive but why is he labeled a neonazi and white supremacist? What labels as "source" material for this since they don't have any media and examples of him being one except for a stash of materials they don't tell us what, just label as neonazi material?

Sorry, due to our media here, it looks like this heinous tragedy was done by someone very passionate about politics and took it to far and almost seems like the media is using a narrative to label this scum bag as something they can use as an example of "brexit racists".

After his arrest, police uncovered a hoard of neo-Nazi literature at his council house and a golden Third Reich eagle ornament with a swastika emblazoned on the front.

If that's what he had in his house, then it's not too much of a leap to assume he was a nazi. Certainly beyond reasonable doubt.

Nat 1 on reading for me. Sigh ty for pointing that out.

 

Sometimes we see crime committed by so called " neo-nazis"  but they have no real political aspirations. They are criminals and its just convenient for them to say things like 

" we care about the white race " 

 

In this case Jo Cox was killed because this guy believed she was weakening the UK ( Britain )  and her objective was to undermine the white race, so in this case its criminal but clearly political. So that's why his actions are linked to the Neo-Nazi movement 

[Elerond]

 

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/us-election-jill-stein-challenge-results-swing-states-ofwisconsin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

US election: Jill Stein to challenge results in swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania amid claims of cyber attacks

 

 

I must admit that this years elections have been very entertaining train wrecks to watch, even though they diminish my hope towards democratic governance.

 

When Trump doubts the results, it's a threat to our democracy. When libs and independants do it, it's perfectly ok. I am so over the media shilling for the left. 

 

 

Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election.

 

And isn't Jill green, making her something else than liberal (in US political sense, as she don't support all the same things as those that are counted as liberals) or independent (as she is member of a party)?

 

I would point out that telegraph is conservative and pro establishment (which is currently controlled by conservatives) magazine in UK.

 

But anyway at least they are willing to pay recount themselves, and recount should remove at least some distrust towards voting system and it will not change results if there hasn't been foul play. Meaning that where Trump, GOP and Democrats seem to be willing to question integrity of voting system, Jill & co are willing to but their money to check if people should actually be worried. Which in my opinion is much more admirable thing to do than what we have seen from those other doubters.

[imaenoon]

That's patently untrue, Elerond. There might be a small segment of society (talking US electorate, not outside interests) who would be mollified by a recount, but not much. Trump haters will still proclaim the illegitimacy of his victory.

 

If there were specific things that came to light after the election that weren't already cited as possible problems that Democrat and Republican officials had not assured the public would not be problems during the election, I could see doing a recount in a state where those problems were apparent. I understand the whole equivalency idea, and I agree that there would be irate Trump supporters if he lost. I submit: not like the leftist crazy outpouring, but there would be some grief. Some of it would probably be genuine as opposed to ginned up by hoaxsters and friendly press. Now that that's aside, on my social media, before the election, I stated without hesitation that, although I was against a Clinton presidency, the person who won would be my president and I would refer that person as such with all respect due the office. I have undoubtedly been a hypocrite in my life, but I'm not being one now.

 

Overturning the results in any state, even a close contest, is hard, but not impossible. Overturning the elections in at least two different states would assure worse problems than we have now and we might actually see genuine reactions on the right like we've seen on the left, and maybe even worse. I personally could have seen a recount against Trump in one state where there was compelling evidence of foul play. I do not feel the same way about three states that all just happened to favor Trump. I notice these people of conscience aren't clamoring for recounts in states like New Hampshire. I would say I wonder why, but I don't want it to appear as if I'm joking. Clearly the states in question were picked for the sole purpose of overturning the national election.

 

Overturning the election by changing the votes in two states out of three cherry picked contests would be a recipe for disaster. It would be terrible and not just for Republicans and Democrats. With the evidence and circumstances as they stand now, it would be disastrous for the nation. Good Lord, what if New Hampshire were thrown in and Trump won and we ended up with the congress deciding? It's fine that you feel the way you do in Finland, but I *live* here. I frankly don't see it happening, but I think the specter of this recount idea is prolonging something most people said they'd like to see over. Namely the election. Anything goes this election, and I suppose it could happen, but the best thing for Republicans and Democrats alike is for the election to be over and the Democrats to concentrate on the next election because, even if Clinton were declared the winner, the left got a bruising this cycle. Better to fix their systemic problem than fight to have a president enter office under these circumstances with a hostile congress and most states shifting towards the Republicans.

Edited November 24, 2016 by imaenoon

[BruceVC]

That's patently untrue, Elerond. There might be a small segment of society (talking US electorate, not outside interests) who would be mollified by a recount, but not much. Trump haters will still proclaim the illegitimacy of his victory.

 

If there were specific things that came to light after the election that weren't already cited as possible problems that Democrat and Republican officials had not assured the public would not be problems during the election, I could see doing a recount in a state where those problems were apparent. I understand the whole equivalency idea, and I agree that there would be irate Trump supporters if he lost. I submit: not like the leftist crazy outpouring, but there would be some grief. Some of it would probably be genuine as opposed to ginned up by hoaxsters and friendly press. Now that that's aside, on my social media, before the election, I stated without hesitation that, although I was against a Clinton presidency, the person who won would be my president and I would refer that person as such with all respect due the office. I have undoubtedly been a hypocrite in my life, but I'm not being one now.

 

Overturning the results in any state, even a close contest, is hard, but not impossible. Overturning the elections in at least two different states would assure worse problems than we have now and we might actually see genuine reactions on the right like we've seen on the left, and maybe even worse. I personally could have seen a recount against Trump in one state where there was compelling evidence of foul play. I do not feel the same way about three states that all just happened to favor Trump. I notice these people of conscience aren't clamoring for recounts in states like New Hampshire. I would say I wonder why, but I don't want it to appear as if I'm joking. Clearly the states in question were picked for the sole purpose of overturning the national election.

 

Overturning the election by changing the votes in two states out of three cherry picked contests would be a recipe for disaster. It would be terrible and not just for Republicans and Democrats. With the evidence and circumstances as they stand now, it would be disastrous for the nation. Good Lord, what if New Hampshire were thrown in and Trump won and we ended up with the congress deciding? It's fine that you feel the way you do in Finland, but I *live* here. I frankly don't see it happening, but I think the specter of this recount idea is prolonging something most people said they'd like to see over. Namely the election. Anything goes this election, and I suppose it could happen, but the best thing for Republicans and Democrats alike is for the election to be over and the Democrats to concentrate on the next election because, even if Clinton were declared the winner, the left got a bruising this cycle. Better to fix their systemic problem than fight to have a president enter office under these circumstances with a hostile congress and most states shifting towards the Republicans.

Imaenoon isn't the easiest and most reasonable solution simply  for Trump to refuse to accept the job as president and we make Hilary president in the interests of social and political cohesion ?

 

 

[imaenoon]

That drew an outloud chuckle.

[Meshugger]

Jill Stein raised 2.2 million in a few hours for the campaign for recount. I am sure that all that money can be traced back to small grass-roots organization and not to nefarious bankers and international hedge fund managers.

[Longknife]

Personally I'm wondering if Jill Stein is just playing dumb and is hoping to find some machine rigging in favor of Clinton lololololol

 

 

Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election.

 

Citation so ****ing needed.

 

He was asked if he would accept results of the election, and he responded (rough quote) "I can't tell you now, I'll have to look at it at the time."

Unless you've got some other interview or source I'm not aware of, don't blatantly misquote a guy to make him look bad. That's disgusting. If you've got one, share it. If you don't, get your misinformation out of here.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Longknife

[Pidesco]

Personally I'm wondering if Jill Stein is just playing dumb and is hoping to find some machine rigging in favor of Clinton lololololol

 

 

Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election.

 

Citation so ****ing needed.

 

He was asked if he would accept results of the election, and he responded (rough quote) "I can't tell you now, I'll have to look at it at the time."

 

Unless you've got some other interview or source I'm not aware of, don't blatantly misquote a guy to make him look bad. That's disgusting. If you've got one, share it. If you don't, get your misinformation out of here.

 

 

I can't find it right now but there was some rally where he said he would only accept the results if he won.

 

Here ya go:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/

[BruceVC]

 

Personally I'm wondering if Jill Stein is just playing dumb and is hoping to find some machine rigging in favor of Clinton lololololol

 

 

Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election.

 

Citation so ****ing needed.

 

He was asked if he would accept results of the election, and he responded (rough quote) "I can't tell you now, I'll have to look at it at the time."

 

Unless you've got some other interview or source I'm not aware of, don't blatantly misquote a guy to make him look bad. That's disgusting. If you've got one, share it. If you don't, get your misinformation out of here.

 

 

I can't find it right now but there was some rally where he said he would only accept the results if he won.

 

Here ya go:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/

 

Yes he did say this but its clear now he didnt mean it, it was just another example of his populist strategy to win the election 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38077422

 

Guys here is a story that asks an interesting question  " are women less corrupt than men " . I think they are generally but the issue is complicated and nuanced and really requires context 

 

Anyway the link gives a good example of this

[Guard Dog]

I forget who said this but it seems pretty true. "The media takes Donald Trump literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally"

[Gfted1]

Closer Look Punches Holes in Swing-State Election Hacking Report.

[BruceVC]

Closer Look Punches Holes in Swing-State Election Hacking Report.

I was watching this on CNN....its very concerning if true 

[redneckdevil]

From the looks of it from what they showing, it wouldn't change Trump winning the electoral college. It would only push the popular vote higher thus gaining more traction to go with popular over electoral, which again would be a bad idea.

If anything, they need to go back to splitting the votes up to amount of votes in each state instead of a winner take all like they've been doing. They do that, you would see both sides losing huge states. Democrates wouldn't be getting their full 55 from California and more like 20 votes instead and vice versa with republicans. Would make people who are different parties than the color state they are actually wanna go out and vote.

 

I will say this, if they do look into the case and find cyber attack, then the next thing people are gonna wanna see is a thorough check on if the votes were from dead people (like NY) and if the voters will "legal" to vote. A rabbit hole that will do harm for both sides and will start being a standard if the upcoming elections.

[Meshugger]

The kids are doing alright:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR8W_O_TRAk

[Darkpriest]

I laughed.. hard :D

[Longknife]

Assange's own lawyer was not allowed to see him:

 

 

Jump to about 9 minutes, the questions at 9:40 going into 10:30 are the revelant ones for the fact she was not in the room with him.

[Azdeus]

No actual footage of him though?

 

I realize it sounds like a crazy conspiracy-level thing, but:

 

1) This election sadly taught me that yeah, we've hit rock-bottom and you actually do have to give those the time of day. Still depressing to realized we've hit that low.

 

2) Even IF he turns out to be A-OK and this is just wild paranoia, it's alarming to me that so few people give attention to such an issue. Assange being captured or killed is not an absurd idea, so I would HOPE the general public is alert the moment something seems amiss. Instead it's just the Democrat establishment not learning a damned thing while many of the Trump supporters are now so high off their victory they view it as a license to be a **** and just spend their days trashing liberals and talking crap. Gee, didn't that lack of respect play a role in a recent politician losing an election...? Amazing to me how priorities seem so out of whack and human nature continues to disappoint.

 

There's two instances of video that allegedly happens after the time where it's theorized wikileaks was compromised (people have dates ranging from October 3rd to October 24th). One I can't find but remember seeing, the other is an interview that was done via RT, which is now being scrutinized for very strange instances that imply some rather heavy editing tricks took place.

I don't know if it was relevant for the prosecutor to get any footage of him, and if it was, she'd not be able to share them in any case.

 

I don't disagree with you that the world, and US, is in a sad state of affairs. I would'nt doubt that the US would try any dirty trick to get him.

 

I saw an interview that was made with Assange earlier this year, I think it was, and he was pretty off it. He demanded a break every 10 minutes and other things, wich is understandable. He's probably climbing the walls in there.

 

 

Assange's own lawyer was not allowed to see him:

 

Jump to about 9 minutes, the questions at 9:40 going into 10:30 are the revelant ones for the fact she was not in the room with him.

 

He had an Ecuadorian lawyer with him, wich is appalling. The Ecuadorian lawyer does'nt have any knowledge as to what the laws are in Sweden. I reckon that the interview and any possible information the prosecutor got form there could be invalidated by that. Wich would make this mess drag out even longer.

 

I just hope they drop the case.

[HoonDing]

"Assange's own lawyer was not allowed to see him:"

 

 I can understand that, he might rape her too.

[BruceVC]

 

About that wikileaks video, he was interviewed by the prosecutor for two days. I can't get more details because it's behind a paywall.

 

http://www.svd.se/annu-en-dags-forhor-med-assange

 

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/f%C3%B6rh%C3%B6ret-med-assange-avslutat-1.3958932 <--- No paywall, atleast not for me.

 

No actual footage of him though?

 

I realize it sounds like a crazy conspiracy-level thing, but:

 

1) This election sadly taught me that yeah, we've hit rock-bottom and you actually do have to give those the time of day. Still depressing to realized we've hit that low.

 

2) Even IF he turns out to be A-OK and this is just wild paranoia, it's alarming to me that so few people give attention to such an issue. Assange being captured or killed is not an absurd idea, so I would HOPE the general public is alert the moment something seems amiss. Instead it's just the Democrat establishment not learning a damned thing while many of the Trump supporters are now so high off their victory they view it as a license to be a **** and just spend their days trashing liberals and talking crap. Gee, didn't that lack of respect play a role in a recent politician losing an election...? Amazing to me how priorities seem so out of whack and human nature continues to disappoint.

 

There's two instances of video that allegedly happens after the time where it's theorized wikileaks was compromised (people have dates ranging from October 3rd to October 24th). One I can't find but remember seeing, the other is an interview that was done via RT, which is now being scrutinized for very strange instances that imply some rather heavy editing tricks took place.

 

There is such little concern about Assange because many people, like me, think of him with utter contempt and disdain

 

He has been directly involved in trying to undermine the USA for years, and by proxy the West,  and was one of the people who contributed towards interfering in the US  elections by selectively releasing certain emails which made the Democrats look very bad. He is someone who has exacerbated this concerning reality we now grapple with where words like " post -truth " have become the Oxford word of 2016 

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/post-truth-oxford-dictionaries-word-year-2016-n685081

 

He needs to face the Swedish rape charges and then the fact he broke the conditions of his bail 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9343630/Julian-Assange-faces-re-arrest-over-breaching-his-bail-condition-by-seeking-asylum-in-Ecuador.html

 

What amazes me is how some of you guys still think he is  some sort of  " cyber-robin hood ", he is not. He is a  criminal and someone who deserves the full weight of the law thrown at him when he is finally arrested...hopefully somehow by the US  authorities    

[BruceVC]

The kids are doing alright:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR8W_O_TRAk

 

This made me laugh

 

There is some truth in the overall frivolous message, for example  in some of  the various radio talk show debates I engage in I tend  to say things like " tertiary education is important and gives you advantage in corporate...but of course just because someone doesnt have a degree that doesnt make them  less than someone who does " (  this is a just an example )

[redneckdevil]

Btw Bruce, how are things going around ur parts? The last I heard didn't sound to good and on the verge of being dangerous. Any changes?

[Guard Dog]

We saw a lot of funny t-shirts during this election but I think we missed the funniest of them all: