American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[AreOut]

Yes. I'm not sure why they didn't influence 2008 and 2012 elections then because wikileaks exists since 2006. Maybe they liked Obama.

[Esseesse]

AreOut said:

Yes. I'm not sure why they didn't influence 2008 and 2012 elections then because wikileaks exists since 2006. Maybe they liked Obama.

Right, so hacked by Russia or not, they're not claiming the emails are faked.

[AreOut]

it seems they want to exploit the antirussian sentiment although I'm not sure that majority of Americans have anything against Russia or even Putin himself

when average american bloke thinks about Russia first thing that springs to mind is some nice russian girls, crazy russian drunk driving or other "in soviet russia" videos...so they see Russians more like weirdos than enemies

[scherzkeks]

AreOut said:

it seems they want to exploit the antirussian sentiment although I'm not sure that majority of Americans have anything against Russia or even Putin himself

when average american bloke thinks about Russia first thing that springs to mind is some nice russian girls, crazy russian drunk driving or other "in soviet russia" videos...so they see Russians more like weirdos than enemies

It is a long-standing tactic. Even Jill Stein is a "Russian agent."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/31/a_new_mccart...

One of the most laughable campaigns I have ever witnessed.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 25th October 22:43

[Murph7355]

Eric Mc said:

What makes you think they aren't ACTUALLY offended?

Everyone's offended these days. I'm sure they all think they are. But the word increasingly has zero meaning as it's been hijacked...I'm sure I could come up with a whole list of similar words if I put a few seconds' thought into it. "Racist" and "poverty" would definitely be on it.

[unrepentant]

If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.

[stuckmojo]

This is a good article (even if from Zerohedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-...

Snobs like unrepentant would do well to read and think for a minute. Because it's about time he and they realise they are too being xenophobic with those who don't align with their line of thought. Look at the insults and words used to describe Trump supporters (actually, to describe anyone who doesn't love Hillary) and see.



I kind of get that the red patch people who had enough - how many of them out there? - will vote for anyone who can stick a middle finger up to those who abandoned them.

No matter what the election results are, there's a widening rift between opposite sides. Like Brexit, but a whole lot worse.

How bad did things have to get for people to support someone like Trump?

[amusingduck]

scherzkeks said:

Obama on rigged elections in 2008. "It's not as if it is just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections -- Democrats have, too."



Straight from the horse's mouth. What a joke the USA is.

Think shes been smoking that peace pipe too much

[amusingduck]

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

article said:

Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping." [...]

http://hubpages.com/politics/Experts-Find-Evidence-of-Vote-Flipping-in-Tim-Canova-Loss-to-Wasserman-Schultz-Call-for-Inspection-of-Ballots

[Esseesse]

unrepentant said:

If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.

Isn't that the place that he talks about that he's just done up? The old post office?

[FN2TypeR]

Esseesse said:

unrepentant said:

If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.

Isn't that the place that he talks about that he's just done up? The old post office?

Yep:

https://www.trumphotels.com/washington-dc/old-post...

[Countdown]

Headline says said:

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

article says said:

Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."

So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHO

[scherzkeks]

FN2TypeR said:

Esseesse said:

unrepentant said:

If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.

Isn't that the place that he talks about that he's just done up? The old post office?

Yep:

https://www.trumphotels.com/washington-dc/old-post...

No idea what he has done to it, but that was one of my favorite buildings in DC when I used to live there.

The main foyer was stunning.

[Esseesse]

scherzkeks said:

FN2TypeR said:

Esseesse said:

unrepentant said:

If you want evidence that Trump knows he's lost tomorrow, 2 weeks before the election, he's in DC where he has no chance trying desperately to prop up his latest failing hotel. His brand is now so toxic that he'll be lucky to survive the 7 years Cuban gave him.

Isn't that the place that he talks about that he's just done up? The old post office?

Yep:

https://www.trumphotels.com/washington-dc/old-post...

No idea what he has done to it, but that was one of my favorite buildings in DC when I used to live there.

The main foyer was stunning.

How can it be failing if it's not open yet?

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

Headline says said:

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

article says said:

Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."

So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHO

Did you read the rest of the article?

[rscott]

amusingduck said:

Countdown said:

Headline says said:

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

article says said:

Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."

So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHO

Did you read the rest of the article?

Yep - it claims their statistical analysis suggests that the votes vary from that expected. That they've found a suggestion that vote flipping may have happened. Not that they've found evidence.

[Countdown]

rscott said:

Yep - it claims their statistical analysis suggests that the votes vary from that expected. That they've found a suggestion that vote flipping may have happened. Not that they've found evidence.

This ^^^^ unless Ive missed something?

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

rscott said:

Yep - it claims their statistical analysis suggests that the votes vary from that expected. That they've found a suggestion that vote flipping may have happened. Not that they've found evidence.

This ^^^^ unless Ive missed something?

If you dig into the primary source (http://www.hollerbackfilm.com/blog/wass-can) - it seems stronger than a "suggestion" to me. They couldn't explain the results, even when controlling for race, income, etc. They could not replicate the results no matter how they distributed the votes between the candidates.

source said:

No matter what percentages of the actual votes we distributed to the candidates, we were unable to replicate the reported results. If the division of the votes is close to what we started with in Figure 7 and then a manufactured 3.5% increase in Wasserman Schultz' results, and a manufactured 3.5% decrease in Canova's results are input into the graph, then the reported totals can be replicated almost exactly (Figure 9). This would seem to imply some kind of manipulation was necessary to obtain these results. It is possible that the reported results are based on demographic trends, but that those trends are being exaggerated in some way

Not beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt proof, i'll admit. But it should be investigated.

[rscott]

stuckmojo said:

This is a good article (even if from Zerohedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-...

Snobs like unrepentant would do well to read and think for a minute. Because it's about time he and they realise they are too being xenophobic with those who don't align with their line of thought. Look at the insults and words used to describe Trump supporters (actually, to describe anyone who doesn't love Hillary) and see.



I kind of get that the red patch people who had enough - how many of them out there? - will vote for anyone who can stick a middle finger up to those who abandoned them.

No matter what the election results are, there's a widening rift between opposite sides. Like Brexit, but a whole lot worse.

How bad did things have to get for people to support someone like Trump?

Certainly an interesting read and does explain well why the less urban parts of the US aren't happy with their lot. It doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining why Trump is so popular though, other than 'he's a bad boy , so they like him'.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

amusingduck said:

Countdown said:

Headline says said:

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

article says said:

Weeks after Bernie Sanders protégé Tim Canova went down in defeat in a strong primary challenge to US Representative Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, professional statisticians say they have uncovered the same kind of statistically unlikely voting pattern which was found in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are calling for a visual inspection of some or all of the actual ballots in order to rule out the presence of electronic "vote-flipping."

So they haven't actually found evidence of vote-flipping, they want to do some checks to rule out the presence of vote flipping. Bit misleading IMHO

Did you read the rest of the article?

Yep - it claims their statistical analysis suggests that the votes vary from that expected. That they've found a suggestion that vote flipping may have happened. Not that they've found evidence.

Ah yes, when not playing the man we debate semantics -- anything but the content.

According to Webster's:
"1 a : an outward sign : indication"

BTW, can you tell me what the definition of is is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8