New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#26 2016-11-15 00:23:17

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Election Meddling

Racist or not, Trump is going to be our next President, the time for choosing our next President has past. We are going to find out what sort of President he's going to be, so lets wait and see. There have been a lot of lies and distortions over the past campaign, so lets just wait and see what sort of President Donald Trump is going to be. Campaigning and protesting does nothing at this point. I say save your judgment for 2020, because that is when the next Presidential election is.

Offline

#27 2016-11-15 05:27:19

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,170
Website

Re: Election Meddling

The best answer to a bad President is a good Congress, constitutional Supreme Court, and tenacious states that jealously guard their sovereignty. If you're terrified of Trump having the same powers as Obama, why weren't you protesting Obama having them?

Let Texas be Texas, and California be California.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#28 2016-11-16 18:01:07

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Re: Election Meddling

Activist Pushed at Anti-Trump Rally Calls Charge Unnecessary

An activist who was pushed down a flight of stairs during an anti-Donald Trump rally at Ohio State University this week says he hopes the charge against his assailant is dropped.

Do “not give into fear and anxiety.” Top DOJ Civil Rights Official: Do 'Not Give Into Fear' Over Trump Election “Wait and see what happens," Vanita Gupta, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

3 NBA Teams Stop Staying at Trump-Brand Hotels in NYC and Chicago  in part to avoid any implied association with the new president-elect, according to league sources.

I got surprized to see this headline SpaceX exec quits to fight Trump 'nightmare'

On the eve of the election, Dex Torricke-Barton wrote an impassioned blog post urging readers to choose "diversity and openness" and vote for Hillary Clinton.  Like much of Silicon Valley, Torricke-Barton was surprised and saddened to see Donald Trump win. Unlike some in the industry, however, he is now looking to do something about it.

Torricke-Barton announced Tuesday that he was quitting his job at SpaceX after just six months in order to do grassroots work to combat the rise of Trump and bridge the "growing gulf... between coastal elites and communities left behind by globalization." His project, called Onwards, will initially take the form of a "listening tour" to better understand why communities across America voted for Trump, how new technologies are impacting them and what they think needs to be changed.

"The only reason to leave my dream job was to go and fight a nightmare -- a future where the world is less open, less compassionate, more closed," he said in an interview. "Going to focus on grassroots change is how I feel I can make the biggest difference right now."

WoW....

Offline

#29 2016-11-17 04:35:38

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,170
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Well, it appears at least *some* people are starting to get it...

This blog post from may has been doing the rounds - Unnecessariat. Is it any surprise that Hillary lost, when she was promising more of the same to people in broken communities with very high suicide and overdose rates? At least Trump promised change. In this respect, he was the candidate most like Obama (Hope! Change! Greatness! No real plan!).


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#30 2016-11-17 19:54:57

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,253

Re: Election Meddling

American presidents do not have absolute power. The state of politics in the USA, ugly as it is, is always subject to competing power centers. Entrenchment should be expected in t+6 months.

That said, trump represents the best chance for mars advocates in a generation. Make enough noise in the right places, and you steer the ship.

Last edited by clark (2016-11-17 19:55:25)

Offline

#31 2016-11-20 16:20:56

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Offline

#32 2016-11-20 17:09:27

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Oh? The Guardian is updated every few minutes. Pennsylvania is reporting 9,136/9,158 precincts, Trump has 2,912,941 votes while Hillary has 2,844,705. Michigan has all precincts reporting, but they're doing a thorough audit called "canvasing". There Trump has 2,279,805, Hillary 2,268,193. The margin is a small percentage, but still 68,236 for Pennsylvania or 11,612 for Michigan. Do you seriously expect either to change?

If both Pennsylvania and Michigan do reverse their result, that would leave Trump with 270 electoral college votes, 268 for Hillary.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-20 18:01:59)

Offline

#33 2016-11-20 19:40:42

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Re: Election Meddling

Thanks RobertDyck for the link to bounce numbers against and here is another from http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/president  which will give even more to compare the numbers with

Pennsylvania is mathmatically not possible as the percent uncount (1%)to candidate is less than there difference (1.2%)
Michigan is another story as there is 4% uncount with a difference of .3% which means finish counting....

Looking down the list of what has been finished to the 99% level and looking at the others that are not done there is still some that are not mathmatically eliminated from changing until the half way point does not cover there respective difference.

So looking at the list for what needs to be finished are: Arizona (11), colorado (9), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), and wisconsin (10).

Offline

#34 2016-11-20 21:29:21

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Election Meddling

Lot of the hate is directed towards Trump, did you see the reception Mike Pence got when he went to see the show Hamilton? I think a lot of the Swastika Grafitti was spray painted by people who weren't actually Nazis trying to smear Trump. This stuff about Trump being a racist Democrat fiction, so I bet there are Democrats spray painting those Swastikas and writing Trump's name next to them. Trump has a Jewish daughter, an son in law, this stuff about him being a Nazi was all Trumped up by the Democrats looking to smear his name so Hillary can get elected. As for Islam being a cancer, a lot of the anti-Semitism actually comes from that quarter, and there were a number of terrorist attacks by Muslim terrorists, naturally its a concern.
al-capone.jpg
You heard of his guy? His name is Al Capone, he came in with a wave of Italian immigrants early in the 20th century. Muslim terrorists are like Al Capone.

Offline

#35 2016-11-20 22:49:06

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Election Meddling

Trump didn't say "all" that is a misquote, just as the Democrats attributed the words of Tina Fey playing the part of Sarah Palin to Sarah Palin. Democrats make up stuff and try to smear people, they lie about their opponents. the only reason the election was close was because most of the media sided with Clinton instead of just reporting the news as they were supposed to do! the only reason Hillary lost in spite of all the support she was getting from the media was because she was such a lousy and uncharismatic candidate, so there was limits to even what the biased so called mainstream media could do to get her elected, the material they had to work with wasn't do good! All of Hillary's campaign material was telling you what a terrible person Donald Trump was, rather than what she would do as President! Hillary didn't have much of a plan at all other than to attack and smear Trump, saying he was much worse! I'm surprised your still campaigning against Trump, the votes have already been cast, what your saying won't have any effect whatsoever. Trump won, that's it, he is our next President, get used to it!

Offline

#36 2016-11-20 23:38:32

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Re: Election Meddling

Here is the whitewater case : http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/ … y-clinton/

The 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is embroiled in yet another international scandal. Still reeling from what many perceive as a botched response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, reports indicate the former secretary of state is being investigated by Egypt’s attorney general. : http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar … ges-egypt/

These crimes have been resolved along time ago all with charges not forth coming../

Now for the other shoe.... 75 current court cases pending of past 4,000-Plus Lawsuits Involving Trump And His Businesses Remain Open. Not made up.....
http://uproxx.com/news/judge-orders-don … e-lawsuit/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/1 … ter/214211
Trump university settled out of court... paid off to drop criminal charge Racketeering.
Recent repeated grooping charges pending
Settled a Real Estate Lawsuit
Foundation not registered properly as non profit

Offline

#37 2016-11-21 06:37:52

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Tom, please don't try to rewrite history. Trump was a misogynist; he claimed he could grab random women by the pussy and get away with it. Don't say "it was so close" because the media was biased in favour of Hillary. In reality the fact this idiot could be elected demonstrates the system is completely broken. However, yes, Hillary didn't have a plan. She just wanted to continue the status quo. Politicians thought campaigning was about data and metrics and a large organization, completely ignoring any message or reason people would want to vote for you. That's also completely broken. The two major parties both selected really bad candidates. The Democrats wanted a woman in the Whitehouse for the first time ever, completely ignoring who she was or her message. In fact, she promised a no-fly-zone over Syria. That could escalate to World War 3! You forget, I wanted people to vote for Gary Johnson. He was the only one with policies that actually made sense. Unfortunately he proved to be really bad with the media. Considering he had been elected a state governor, I was really disappointed how bad he was in front of the camera. Hillary talked about experience, but Johnson was the only candidate who had been executive of a branch of government. And if voters really insisted on voting for a woman, then vote Jill Stein. Her position on the environment is far too radical for me, but I still claim she's better than Hillary. Gary Johnson said he wanted a carbon tax; I'm completely against carbon tax. But he was far better than the other 3 candidates.

So Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA. He claimed NAFTA is horrible for America. Do you realize how biased it is in favour of America? Canada has been screwed many times. I have posted before about this. Stelco was a single Canadian steel company. They built a new state-of-the-art furnace in 1992, while all other steel companies in the Canada and the US were using furnaces from the beginning of World War 2. They invested money, built a furnace that was safer for workers, consumed less coal, produced fewer carbon emissions, cost less to operate, produced steel with fewer impurities so it was stronger than any other company's steel, and sold at a lower price. They got a greater market share. Were able to pay bills, pay their bank loan, and pay dividends to shareholders. But US steel companies didn't like it. The bi-national free trade commission heard the complaint, but said this is how the market is supposed to work. But a state court overruled it. How the hell does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? Canada needed binding rules to resolve disputes. Meanwhile in the early '90s the EU formed. Bill Clinton noticed the EU had 350 million people at that time, and it was all western European countries at that time. These were modern first world countries. The US had 250 million and Canada had 25 million, so the bi-national free trade area had 275 million people total. Today America has 350 million and Canada has 35 million, but that's what it was in 1991/92. Bill Clinton was afraid the EU would become the dominant economy in the world. He wanted to add Mexico to the North American free trade area so it the population would rival EU. Canada didn't want that, but you give up something to get something. So Canada allowed Mexico to join to get binding dispute rules. Then the softwood lumber dispute happened in the early 2000s. The dispute resolution system was invoked, the ruling was primarily in Canada's favour. Not entirely, but mostly. But the US refused to comply. The US never did comply. The US is in complete violation of NAFTA regarding this. A separate agreement was made about softwood lumber, illegal tariffs taken from Canadian lumber were supposed to be refunded but never were. That agreement has expired, we're back in a mess. With softwood lumber, Canada has said we won't let American lumber firms have access to Canadian trees. If you want Canadian lumber, you buy finished lumber, not raw trees. The American house construction industry noticed that Canadian finished lumber is both higher quality and lower price than from American saw mills, so they want Canadian lumber anyway. So Trump claims NAFTA is biased against the US? He's an idiot! It's biased in favour of the US.

So how will Trump screw Canada?

Offline

#38 2016-11-21 09:07:45

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Election Meddling

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, please don't try to rewrite history. Trump was a misogynist;

Then why is Hillary Clinton still married to one? Could a newly divorced Hillary Rodham have become President? Therein lies your answer, Hillary needed that last name of Clinton, because it belonged to  former President, and people would associate her with him! Many people figure that if Bill Clinton wasn't so bad for them in spite of his misogyny, then they figure that Donald Trump couldn't be that bad either, plus he is a billionaire so he might know something about making money! You know Donald Trump used his billions to become President, not by spending it mind you, he spent less than Hillary Clinton, but as an example of what he could do for this country.

he claimed he could grab random women by the pussy and get away with it.

He also said he could shoot a person and his people would still vote for him, is that proof of Murder? "Could" is not the same thing as "Did!" These are idle boasts, Donald Trump has a tendency to boast and brag a lot, this is one of his character flaws, but he still would make a better President than Hillary, this is also one of the reasons the Media so favored him during the Republican Primaries, they wanted to select the weakest candidate for Hillary to run against, the only problem was that Hillary couldn't even beat him, any other candidate would have beat Hillary in a landslide, so the Media went to work assassinating the characters of the other Republican Candidates to make sure Trump would win in hopes that he would lose to Hillary, but instead Hillary was so awful, we're going to end up with a President Trump, because of them trying to rig the election in Hillary's favor, and it all began in the Primaries of both parties! One was rigged by the Press for Hillary so Bernie Sanders wouldn't win, the other was rigged in favor of Donald Trump, and once he won, the Press turned on him. The Press isn't doing its job, instead of reporting the news, it is trying to control our country by selecting our leaders through favorable and unfavorable coverage!

Don't say "it was so close" because the media was biased in favour of Hillary. In reality the fact this idiot could be elected demonstrates the system is completely broken.

I don't know very many "Idiots" who could have done what Donald Trump has done. If Donald Trump wanted to, he could go into space, he could pay the Russians to take him to the International Space Station, can you do that? I don't disagree with you that the system is broken, the part of the system that doesn't work, which isn't doing what it is supposed to do is the Media. Instead if reporting the news and serving is customers, it is making a grab for the brass ring of Politicial power by spreading propaganda with the objective of electing their chosen candidate, the Trump victory is for them an incomplete success, they got Trump and Hillary to win their respective primaries, but the problem is the American People ended up with a two-way race between two candidates that they didn't like, thanks to the media, and they didn't like Hillary Clinton more, and the people who supported Donald Trump stuck to their candidate. The Trump voters voted for a man, the Hillary voters voted for a Party, they held their noses and voted for someone they knew to be a liar, but they voted for her just the same because they wanted the policies she promised them, the problem was she was a known liar! Hillary would have done whatever she wanted if elected, she would have told the voters anything they wanted to hear without feeling any obligation about keeping her promises once she was elected. Trump however has a sense of honor, he would feel obligated to keep whatever promises he made while on the campaign trail, that is why Trump won.

However, yes, Hillary didn't have a plan. She just wanted to continue the status quo. Politicians thought campaigning was about data and metrics and a large organization, completely ignoring any message or reason people would want to vote for you.

Yes, Hillary campaigned down to us, assuming we were stupid animals, that all she needed was to spend the right amount of money on the right ad campaign to convince us to vote for her, and then once elected, she would do whatever she wanted, without regard to the promises she made to the people who elected her! The People weren't as stupid as she was counting on, and its too bad Ted Cruz wasn't elected President in Donald's place, but as you say, our system is broken, and our Media needs fixing!

That's also completely broken. The two major parties both selected really bad candidates.

It wasn't the parties that selected  them, it was the media! One thing a democracy needs is good information about the candidates the people were voting for, the Media wasn't providing that, it was providing Propaganda instead, it was attempting to manipulate the system by providing slanted coverage toward their favored candidates and negative coverage towards their unfavored candidates. Among the unfavored candidates was Ted Cruz, Donald Trump started spreading rumors that Ted's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, and the Media instead of disputing that, amplified that message instead! If the Media was actually doing its job instead of manipulating the system, someone else may have been nominated the Republican Party's candidate instead of Trump! The people to blame in case you didn't like the choice of two candidates, is the US Media! I voted for Trump because I felt that Trump was more honest than Hillary, and actually believed h would build a wall on our Southern Border to keep out the illegal immigrants! Hillary has a known record of lying, even about stupid things she didn't have to lie about, such as being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia! If she could lie so easily, how do we know which promises she intended to keep if any, and for that matter what she would actually do if elected President?

The Democrats wanted a woman in the Whitehouse for the first time ever, completely ignoring who she was or her message. In fact, she promised a no-fly-zone over Syria. That could escalate to World War 3!

I don't think the Russians want nuclear war any more than we do. don't forget nuclear war also means their cities going up in flames, now the Russians wouldn't put their lives at stake over Syria, they would back down! The only reason they are there now is because they perceived a weak President in the White House, and they thought they could get away with it. Trump, it appears, seems willing to let them keep Syria, if the Russians are favoring Trump it could be for that reason!

You forget, I wanted people to vote for Gary Johnson. He was the only one with policies that actually made sense. Unfortunately he proved to be really bad with the media. Considering he had been elected a state governor, I was really disappointed how bad he was in front of the camera. Hillary talked about experience, but Johnson was the only candidate who had been executive of a branch of government. And if voters really insisted on voting for a woman, then vote Jill Stein. Her position on the environment is far too radical for me, but I still claim she's better than Hillary. Gary Johnson said he wanted a carbon tax; I'm completely against carbon tax. But he was far better than the other 3 candidates.

Voting for someone because she is a woman is the absolute wrong thing to do! As I recall, the Media did a number of Sarah Palin with Tina Fey doing a caricature of her in order to smear Sarah Palin enough so she wouldn't run for President, it is unfortunate because I think she would have made a great President, but the Media already had someone else in mind to be the first Woman President, and it was not her! So they went extraordinarily negative with gossipy stories covering her and her children! All to ruin her reputation to clear the way for Hillary's run. they didn't want Sarah Palin running against Barack Obama in 2012, that was the thing they most feared and succeeded in preventing!

So Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA. He claimed NAFTA is horrible for America. Do you realize how biased it is in favour of America?

You know America is a continent that you live on, it is two continents in fact! It was meant to benefit North America, that was its whole purpose. The main problem with NAFTA now is Mexico, not your country!

Canada has been screwed many times. I have posted before about this. Stelco was a single Canadian steel company. They built a new state-of-the-art furnace in 1992, while all other steel companies in the Canada and the US were using furnaces from the beginning of World War 2. They invested money, built a furnace that was safer for workers, consumed less coal, produced fewer carbon emissions, cost less to operate, produced steel with fewer impurities so it was stronger than any other company's steel, and sold at a lower price. They got a greater market share. Were able to pay bills, pay their bank loan, and pay dividends to shareholders. But US steel companies didn't like it. The bi-national free trade commission heard the complaint, but said this is how the market is supposed to work. But a state court overruled it. How the hell does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? Canada needed binding rules to resolve disputes. Meanwhile in the early '90s the EU formed. Bill Clinton noticed the EU had 350 million people at that time, and it was all western European countries at that time. These were modern first world countries. The US had 250 million and Canada had 25 million, so the bi-national free trade area had 275 million people total. Today America has 350 million and Canada has 35 million, but that's what it was in 1991/92. Bill Clinton was afraid the EU would become the dominant economy in the world. He wanted to add Mexico to the North American free trade area so it the population would rival EU. Canada didn't want that, but you give up something to get something. So Canada allowed Mexico to join to get binding dispute rules. Then the softwood lumber dispute happened in the early 2000s. The dispute resolution system was invoked, the ruling was primarily in Canada's favour. Not entirely, but mostly. But the US refused to comply. The US never did comply. The US is in complete violation of NAFTA regarding this. A separate agreement was made about softwood lumber, illegal tariffs taken from Canadian lumber were supposed to be refunded but never were. That agreement has expired, we're back in a mess. With softwood lumber, Canada has said we won't let American lumber firms have access to Canadian trees. If you want Canadian lumber, you buy finished lumber, not raw trees. The American house construction industry noticed that Canadian finished lumber is both higher quality and lower price than from American saw mills, so they want Canadian lumber anyway. So Trump claims NAFTA is biased against the US? He's an idiot! It's biased in favour of the US.

So how will Trump screw Canada?

Trump has said he loves Canada, his problem is with Mexico stealing our jobs, that is what he says. He wouldn't have a problem with NAFTA if it was just between the US and Canada.

Offline

#39 2016-11-21 19:01:04

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Offline

#40 2016-11-21 19:12:38

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Hillary needed that last name of Clinton, because it belonged to  former President, and people would associate her with him!

Whoa! That's chauvinist. You think Hillary did that well just because of her husband? When Bill was president there were many people (including me) who thought Hillary could have done a better job. She wasn't an ornament like most other first ladies, she was an active participant in the Clinton government. She was effectively part of Bill's cabinet. Do you guys use that word? That means all the "Secretaries" of the federal government. She got elected to the Senate, then was a Secretary of State under Obama. She was impressive all on her own. All politicians ride on others reputation, they need connections. She certainly had that.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

but as you say, our system is broken, and our Media needs fixing!

It's not the media that needs fixing, it's the system. Media is an observer, not the control. As you say, media is trying to control, that's a big part of the problem. Here in Canada, we set limits. Donors can only contribute so much. Actually, I think the limit is not too restrictive, but at least there are limits. Jean Chrétien set the donation limit to $5,400 per candidate per year for individuals, and $1,000 per candidate per year for corporations. Stephen Harper and his party tried to change it to $1,000 per candidate per year for individuals, and no donations allowed at all from corporations. However he tried to make it retroactive to before the last election, and did it as the other party was in the midst of a leadership campaign. That's Canada's equivalent to a primary. He knew perfectly well the delegate fee was $995, so that meant anyone who donated more than $5 to the last election would not be allowed to be a delegate. So core members of the party would be banned from the being delegates? Luckily the Senate intervened, made it $1,100 per candidate per year, and made it effective the following New Year, so that was after the leadership convention. I still think $1,000 per candidate is appropriate for corporations. That includes "donations in kind", so that would allow a business that owns a hall to donate the use of the hall. Businessmen do this to get free advertising for their hall, and only do so when it's otherwise sitting empty, not to support the politician or cause. Professional fundraisers try to get donations in kind to cover most expenses of a fundraising event, so proceeds can go to the cause. Ideal is for donations in kind for everything, but that never happens. Even if corporations were only permitted donations in kind up to $500 per year, that would be better.

The Canadian system also limits spending. Each candidate for the federal election (MP is roughly equivalent to Representative), is limited to about $70,000 total spending for the 6-week campaign period before election day. It's usually 6 weeks, once in recent years it was 4, and once it was 8 because it was over Christmas. Who wants a politician knocking on your door Christmas Day? Exact amount depends on the number of voters in that riding (electoral district). There's also a limit on spending for the national party; which would be roughly equivalent to your spending for President.

You know, one reason the media campaigns so hard for the two major parties is they are the only ones able to spend over a billion dollars each in advertising each election. What's what it's really all about: money. They media wants to be bought. And yes, I suspect you are right, some corporate executives in the media want the power to select the President. So power and money. It always comes down to power and money.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I don't think the Russians want nuclear war any more than we do... the Russians wouldn't put their lives at stake over Syria, they would back down!

Don't underestimate Putin. He was elected to "make Russia great again". Sound familiar? Many Russian voters long for the Soviet Union, when they were one of two superpowers of the world. They want to be "great again". The Clintons have been nibbling away at former Soviet sphere of influence. All former Warsaw Pact countries other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO. And some former republics of the Soviet Union itself: the Balkan states. But the Clintons went after Georgia and Ukraine, and now there's Syria, an Arab oil country. Russia has to draw a line somewhere. Putin said he's concerned about the Russian economy. I take him at his word, he's concerned countries allied with Russia and part of the Russian economy will stop doing business with Russia. He has to stop this. And if American fighter jets owned by the American military (navy or air force) and piloted by American pilots, shoot down Russian fighter jets owned by the Russian air force and piloted by Russian pilots? There's no way he could stand for that. That would result in at minimum the entire air base being bombed flat, or aircraft carrier being sunk. Wherever the jets came from. If Russia sunk an American aircraft carrier, what do you think would happen? So Hillary's no-fly-zone would quickly escalate.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Voting for someone because she is a woman is the absolute wrong thing to do!

You didn't see all the campaign ads? You didn't see how many women just wanted a woman in the Whitehouse? They didn't really pay attention to issues or who Hillary was, they just wanted a woman. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people wanted that.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Trump has said he loves Canada, his problem is with Mexico stealing our jobs, that is what he says. He wouldn't have a problem with NAFTA if it was just between the US and Canada.

I hope you're right.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-21 19:21:15)

Offline

#41 2016-11-21 19:27:23

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Yes, Hillary campaigned down to us, assuming we were stupid animals, that all she needed was to spend the right amount of money on the right ad campaign to convince us to vote for her, and then once elected, she would do whatever she wanted, without regard to the promises she made to the people who elected her!

Yup. That was bad. Reminds me of Kim Campbell. Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada from 1988 to 1993. He was much hated because he did the exact opposite of his mandate. Everything he said he would do, he did the opposite. He condescended to voters, and abused power. I could go into more detail, but voters were out for vengeance. The Conservative Party begged him to not try to run for re-election, let someone else do it. He eventually acquiesced. The Conservative party selected Kim Campbell to replace him. Because of idiosyncrasies of the Canadian system, she became Prime Minister briefly without being elected. Just the equivalent of a primary. Canadian voters get very nervous when that happens, demand an immediate election to either vindicate or reject their selection. She was Prime Minister for only 3 months. The Conservative Party claimed she was completely different than the much hated Brian Mulroney, but voters were concerned the rest of the Conservative Party were the same party cronies, the same regime. But they were willing to hear her out. But during the election campaign she said nothing. Until one reporter cornered her and asked bluntly what her issues are. Her response was...

An election is not a time to discuss issues. An election is a time to discuss personalities. We'll discuss issues after I'm elected.

Well! That was the last nail in the coffin! Conservative party members didn't accept the fact there was nothing they could do to win the election, the only question was how badly. But Kim Campbell said that on camera! In that election they went from a majority in Parliament to only 2 members elected to the House. Under Canadian parliamentary rules a party needs at least 5% of the members of the House to be officially recognized as a party. Election rules are different, but that's parliamentary rules. So the Conservative party went from majority in the House and Prime Minister to no longer recognized as a party at all.

Politicians came up with a phrase: Save the furniture. That means don't try to win the election, instead save as much as you can. Ensure the party still has a presence in the House so they can run again next election.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-23 00:55:27)

Offline

#42 2016-11-22 12:26:21

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

I've said it before, don't bully Russia. Don't expect them to back down. Just stop messing with their back yard. If they want to take out ISIS, let them. Don't poke the Russian bear.

Offline

#43 2016-11-23 00:39:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Re: Election Meddling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new … 8e552154be

Election Victory Won't Shield Trump From Legal Woes
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-fo … d=43722522

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-n … rt-n687441

Getting a tax break for fraud: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum … ettlement/

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results as Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/ … index.html
The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/opinions/ … index.html

Trump tells New York Times it's OK to have conflicts of interest
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/ … index.html

Offline

#44 2016-11-23 01:36:44

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

SpaceNut wrote:

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results ... believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked

According to the article, those three states are: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin is not currently undergoing anything, but results were close. If results are overturned in all three states, that would make Hillary president elect.

Offline

#45 2016-11-23 05:36:26

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,120

Re: Election Meddling

Although I identify myself as a Republican, sooner or later some inconvenient truths need to be taken into account:

* Democrat politicians like to mess with the voting process and Republican politicians like to gerrymander districts
* Donald Trump is President-elect because ordinary everyday Americans are tired of class warfare / identity politics / political correctness nonsense, tired of Democrats blaming the Republicans for Democrat leadership failures, and just plain tired of the general level of stupidity and criminality associated with Democrat politicians - although there are more than a few Republican politicians I'd like to see voted out of office
* Children must eventually grow up and start thinking for themselves, acting in a reasoned rather than emotional manner

Since Trump won the election, the Clinton drones have been busy trying to foment that civil war that the media unsuccessfully attempted to attribute to Trump drones.  The media and Democrats (What's the difference?) learned nothing from that mistake and are right back at it again with more lame attempts to characterize all Republicans as racist xenophobic bigots based on the actions of a few hate-filled people while simultaneously ignoring the presumably Democrat voters threatening people, inciting people to violence, and actually committing violent crimes.

My wife is a first generation immigrant from Viet Nam.  She, like so many others, came here legally and her family paid dearly for that privilege.  Her father was a government official in Saigon, a plantation owner, and someone who stayed to fight for his country while so many around him were running for the exit.  He was re-educated for ten years after the war for that mistake, which is a polite way of saying he was tortured.  Very shortly after her family managed to escape from those wonderful peace-loving communists that most of the college-educated young people over here think are so great, he died - happy that he was a free man living in a free country.  Needless to say, my wife and I both believe amnesty is an insult to people who actually followed the law and legally immigrated.

Apart from the utterly ridiculous issue of illegal aliens overrunning our borders and trade policies that seem to have been purposefully designed to force American workers into the poor house, President Obama has literally spent us into oblivion with the Unaffordable Care Act and stimulus spending.  If President Bush's out-of-control spending was bad policy, then President Obama has taken bad policy to the next level.  I didn't vote for President Bush or President Obama because I thought both men were lousy choices for President.  Threatening war with Russia is just dumb, even if they didn't have thousands of nuclear weapons.  I have no idea why we're so fixated on Russia.  Selling weapons to drug cartels and terrorists is just treason, but nobody in DC will ever call that what it is.

* At some point Main Street should benefit from whatever economic growth we supposedly have on Wall Street
* Trade agreements that don't benefit American workers are stupid
* Unnecessary government spending on destructive programs like the Unaffordable Care Act is stupid
* Fighting foreign wars with no clear or achievable objectives is stupid
* Fomenting revolutions in foreign countries is stupid
* Threatening to attack countries with nuclear weapons is profoundly stupid
* Selling weapons to our enemies is treason and also profoundly stupid
* Running social experiments within our military is profoundly stupid
* Class warfare is divisive, destructive, and stupid

Right now, there's a whole lotta "stupid" going on in our government and our politicians seem stuck on it.  I want President-elect Trump to do what he said he would.  Work with both parties (something President Obama utterly failed to do), build the stupid wall, for whatever good it will do, re-negotiate our trade deals, stop spending money on destructive government programs, and put Americans back to work.  For the love of all that is holy, and this is coming from an atheist, don't start any more damn wars!

Clinton lost.  Trump won.  Everyone across the political spectrum needs to move forward with the rest of their lives.

Offline

#46 2016-11-23 08:01:01

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

Remember I posted that in 2004 one precinct had more votes for the winning candidate than the number of registered voters? That was for George W. Bush. And in year 2000, all voting machines for one precinct were set on "test" mode, so all votes were lost. That was a precinct that normally votes Democrat. Again, the winner was George W. Bush. This year Republicans blame Democrats for interfering with the election, but Republicans do it just as much. And both are guilty of gerrymandering. You can't blame just one party.

Actually, I think a recount would be good. Even if Trump remains president. Then everyone could see that Trump won fair and square. Considering the recount of the Democrat primary in California found 15% of votes for Bernie Sanders were counted by the machines for Hillary, this is an issue this year. It would be interesting to see which way a recount would move the result.

Offline

#47 2016-11-23 14:30:19

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,120

Re: Election Meddling

RobertDyck wrote:

Remember I posted that in 2004 one precinct had more votes for the winning candidate than the number of registered voters? That was for George W. Bush. And in year 2000, all voting machines for one precinct were set on "test" mode, so all votes were lost. That was a precinct that normally votes Democrat. Again, the winner was George W. Bush. This year Republicans blame Democrats for interfering with the election, but Republicans do it just as much. And both are guilty of gerrymandering. You can't blame just one party.

The democrats are the ones who want to confer the privilege of voting without an ID.  As a Republican, I want every American to have proof of citizenship and be registered to vote.  In connection with my military service, Uncle Sam has my birth certificate, fingerprints, address, DNA, and extensive background information.  I firmly believe that personal identification information should be recorded, encrypted, and attached to every vote.  We have the money, manpower, and technology to identify every American, but no will to separate ourselves from the illegal aliens invading our country and to stop fraud at the voting booth.

RobertDyck wrote:

Actually, I think a recount would be good. Even if Trump remains president. Then everyone could see that Trump won fair and square. Considering the recount of the Democrat primary in California found 15% of votes for Bernie Sanders were counted by the machines for Hillary, this is an issue this year. It would be interesting to see which way a recount would move the result.

Instead of demanding a recount, Clinton supporters took to the streets demanding death for President-elect Trump and people who voted for him.  They committed various acts of vandalism, arson, theft, robbery, and assault because the person they voted for didn't win the election.  Their actions after this election cycle clearly demonstrated why Trump supporters voted for him.  If someone disagrees with the Democrats, their constituency wants to murder or otherwise suppress the dissenters.  That's democracy (mob rule) in action.  Thankfully, the US is not a democracy yet.

We have an electoral college in this country.  It exists for a reason.  The people who live in cities on the West and East coast states are not supposed to be the sole arbiters of who wins elections.  The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.  A recount isn't going to confer 38 more electoral college votes to Secretary Clinton.  The overwhelming majority of states voted in favor of Trump.

When President Obama was first elected, although I had my misgivings about him and his opponent, and consequently didn't vote for President Obama or Senator McCain in that election cycle, I thought to myself "Well, if he does what he says he's going to do then maybe it'll be good for the country."  About a year into his first term, I realized that that sentiment was not congruent with reality.

My personal belief is that America should never become a true democracy or adopt socialist principles.  Every attempt to create a utopian society where everything required to live was provided "for free", to the people, ended in abject failure.  Personal responsibility and capitalism trumps state warding and central planning / collectivism / socialism / any other form of totalitarianism.  The commentary from so many in the media, the DNC, and the Democrat Party clearly illustrated that utopia was exactly what they wanted.  It doesn't exist.  It never has and never will as long as humans are involved.

Offline

#48 2016-11-23 17:32:09

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: Election Meddling

kbd512: You realize the candidate that I said I would have voted for was the Libertarian party. What does that say?

Tom: I am just glad you are not in a position of influence.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-23 18:11:50)

Offline

#49 2016-11-23 17:49:08

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 17,417

Re: Election Meddling

RobertDyck I have been through the manufacturing attributes of having NAFTA with mexican producer being poor in quality control to the point that product was brought back to being made here in the USA due to it.

Since Bernie cast his claim to Hillary for nomination does that also mean votes by proxy as well....sound like a court opinion needs to be renderred...

kbd512 I say thank you for your wifes courage and your individual strength to being the life of being American into your home.

In the 30 years of manufacturing industry I have had the pleasure of working with the Vietmanese, Loasian, Cambodian, South Korean, Egyptian, Scottish, English and from Spain. All with no hatred.... And currently with other nations which are where I am working now of which uncle sam does have my Pii on file.

I do agree with your list of stupid things that are being forced on americans by those in DC and that the corruption of american systems do need fixing.....

These days its not enough to have just a Birth certificate, social security card, a drivers license or any other form of identification to be used in proving citizenship. So how do we fix it so that all can vote that claim to be american?

There are good ways to protest but that is not rioting and damaging of others businesses or personel property....

I see Trump has finally said that he is not condoning the behavoir of the Alt-Right Group: 'I Disavows, Condemn Them' to little way late with what I am sure many now wanting to recast there vote for others....

Green Party Candidate Calls for Recount in Key Swing States

They also point to evidence Russian hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee and potentially a top adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign as evidence of both ability and willingness. Hackers compromised voter records in Illinois and attempted to breach voting systems in a handful of other states prior to the election.

The deadline to file for a recount in Wisconsin is Friday, while the deadlines for Pennsylvania and Michigan are next week. Recounts are costly to conduct, and each state requires various fees depending on the size of the vote lead and how expansive the recount is.

Still with the continued countHillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Now Over Two Million

Wasserman's count, Trump beat Clinton in 13 key swing states by a 48.5%-to-46.6% margin. In the non-swing states, though, Clinton is ahead of Trump 48.9%-to-45.6%.

Percentages are way to close not to investigate.....

Offline

#50 2016-11-23 20:25:05

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,120

Re: Election Meddling

SpaceNut,

This recount nonsense is only going to make the Democrats look even worse than they do now when the same inevitable result is arrived at.  Do the recount.  The results won't change.  Mob rule doesn't win here.  California, Illinois, New York, and Texas don't get to decide the outcomes of elections for the rest of the country and that's a good thing.  Revisiting the election results would simply be another case of Democrat politicians going to the next power center to try to get their way after they've been repudiated by the people they're supposed to represent.

President Obama couldn't convince Congress to pass his version of immigration reform (amnesty) or gun (people) control, so he either refused to enforce laws he didn't personally agree with or attempted to do an end-run around Congress by issuing executive orders.  When those orders were taken to the Supreme Court, some were found to be unconstitutional and struck down.  He persisted and filed appeals.  The appeals were also either struck down or the Supreme Court refused to re-try the case.  Those executive overreaches are quite disturbing to me, much like President Bush's executive orders following 9/11.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB