PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[DiracSpike]

The donations to stein have come from regular people who were upset with the process...most likely because they were upset their candidate lost be it Hilary or whoever else. And the CIA report is being used as grounds for invalidation now by people who are upset that Trump won.

And my point about Colorado and New Mexico is if you're going to put states that republicans won under the microscope you'd have to do the same with the ones that democrats won. It's not a huge stretch to think that people who aren't actually citizens of the US voted there and voted democrat. do I think it made any appreciable difference? No, which goes back to my original postulation that recounts are dumb unless the margins are incredibly thin.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by photon

Would be interested in more information about undocumented immigrants voting in Colorado and New Mexico.

You'll be hard pressed to find that only because it doesn't exist as imagined by the conservatives. It's an urban myth perpetuated by the right to justify voter suppression laws. But you knew that already

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Anyone who thinks that is not informed...I recommend this podcast by a cybersecurity expert who was talking about these issues in September.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-de...-idUSKCN10C2FM

This was really interesting thanks! I like how they discussed real recent examples, and get into a question I've kind of wondered recently (why nations don't see hacks or espionage or similar as acts of war).

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by photon

This was really interesting thanks! I like how they discussed real recent examples, and get into a question I've kind of wondered recently (why nations don't see hacks or espionage or similar as acts of war).

Because everybody does it to everybody else; it's part of the game played by nation states.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

You'll be hard pressed to find that only because it doesn't exist as imagined by the conservatives. It's an urban myth perpetuated by the right to justify voter suppression laws. But you knew that already

So you agree with me that voter fraud isnt an actual thing and the current recounts are dumb?

[photon]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The donations to stein have come from regular people who were upset with the process...most likely because they were upset their candidate lost be it Hilary or whoever else. And the CIA report is being used as grounds for invalidation now by people who are upset that Trump won.

Fair point, there's no doubt there's lots of people dissatisfied with the result and would grasp at anything including giving money to Stein for the recount.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

And my point about Colorado and New Mexico is if you're going to put states that republicans won under the microscope you'd have to do the same with the ones that democrats won. It's not a huge stretch to think that people who aren't actually citizens of the US voted there and voted democrat. do I think it made any appreciable difference? No, which goes back to my original postulation that recounts are dumb unless the margins are incredibly thin.

Ah I see. There's no real point in putting a state the winning side won under the microscope though, it doesn't change the outcome whereas examining a state they won can, so it's logical that's where any attempt at a recount should start if the goal is to flip a result.

If one of the states that had a recount did flip tens of thousands of votes and flipped to Clinton then I would bet all states would get a re-count at that point, since as you say states that the winner lost would suddenly become relevant.

If the goal is to validate the result, then the states should be picked at random, or maybe random combined with the narrowest margin.

As for needing a razor thin margin, I think that does kind of describe this election result. Trump won based on less than 0.1% of the vote distributed across 3 states.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

So you agree with me that voter fraud isnt an actual thing and the current recounts are dumb?

What is the harm in a recount of votes? In the case of an election the double checking of results, particularly in close races, should be seen as being a positive and isn't indicative of a rigged system. Having Russian actively attempting to interfere with the election should be addressed, as it raises huge red flags, and while it shouldn't change anything in this current election, it could very well change how the United States operates in future elections. To sweep it under the carpet would be all but condoning similar actions in the future.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

In regards to the Russians I mean, IF they're responsible it's a pretty big leap that the release of podesta's emails effected voting patterns in any meaningful way.

That's actually a bad assumption on your part. There is research to suggest otherwise. The Search Engine Manipulation Effect has been shown to move undecided voters by 20% or more. This is a significant number, especially when the large number of undecided voters there were late in the game. The combination of fake news and the involvement of foreign actors could easily tip the scales in a meaningful way based on the consumption habits of those undecideds in the lead-up to the election.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's not a huge stretch to think that people who aren't actually citizens of the US voted there and voted democrat. do I think it made any appreciable difference?

Actually, that is a huge stretch. The incidents of voter fraud are almost non-existent. This past election, the four published incidences of voter fraud were from Trump supporters (3) and an independent. You have to ignore all the controls put in place to prevent voter fraud, and then believe that it has become systemic. When we look at systemic problems with the voting mechanisms in the United States we find that it is pretty much Republicans responsible for issues. Whether they be gerrymandering or voter suppression efforts, through either disqualifying minorities from voting or scrubbing them from voter rolls or imposing oppressive voter ID laws, that is all the behaviors of one party. These are real things that continue to happen and there is plenty of proof of such issues. Your claim that there were millions of votes placed by illegals has zero evidence to support it. None. So which is a stretch again?

No, which goes back to my original postulation that recounts are dumb unless the margins are incredibly thin.

What constitutes an incredibly thin margin? Is a margin of less that 1% enough to constitute a recount? The gap in Michigan as 11,000 votes of over 5 million cast. Is that a thin enough margin?

[justafan]

Every democratic country had voting. Your vote counts toward the new leader. USA, has a strange system, even could be called outdated. I think they need to get rid of the antiquated 'electoral' system and let every vote count. Popular vote.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by justafan

Every democratic country had voting. Your vote counts toward the new leader. USA, has a strange system, even could be called outdated. I think they need to get rid of the antiquated 'electoral' system and let every vote count. Popular vote.

I actually don't think we need to entirely do away with the electoral college system, it does to an extent level the playing field between heavily populated urban areas and less populated rural ones, but as of right now, it pushes past "even" and makes rural votes more important than urban votes.

Rather than scrap the entire electoral college, I'd be in favor of just killing the "winner takes all" idea regarding electoral votes. Trump won Pennsylvania, for example, with 48.8% of the vote to Clinton's 47.6%. As the current system is, Trump wins all 20 electoral votes, despite narrowly edging out Clinton. If the system was more accurate, Trump would get 10, Clinton 9, and Gary Johnson would've gotten 1. California goes from 55 to Clinton to 34 Clinton, 18 Trump, Johnson gets 1. (Obviously this would need some tinkering, that leaves 2 votes on the table because of percentages)

Broken down that way, you get a far more accurate system, and it doesn't blow up the entire process.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by justafan

Every democratic country had voting. Your vote counts toward the new leader. USA, has a strange system, even could be called outdated. I think they need to get rid of the antiquated 'electoral' system and let every vote count. Popular vote.

Couldn't you argue the Canadian system is even stranger?

Head of State is chosen by 0% of the population while the Head of Government is chosen indirectly by a 40% popular vote.

Yes, the electoral college is antiquated and needs changes but so are a lot of other democratic voting systems.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I actually don't think we need to entirely do away with the electoral college system, it does to an extent level the playing field between heavily populated urban areas and less populated rural ones, but as of right now, it pushes past "even" and makes rural votes more important than urban votes.

Rather than scrap the entire electoral college, I'd be in favor of just killing the "winner takes all" idea regarding electoral votes. Trump won Pennsylvania, for example, with 48.8% of the vote to Clinton's 47.6%. As the current system is, Trump wins all 20 electoral votes, despite narrowly edging out Clinton. If the system was more accurate, Trump would get 10, Clinton 9, and Gary Johnson would've gotten 1. California goes from 55 to Clinton to 34 Clinton, 18 Trump, Johnson gets 1. (Obviously this would need some tinkering, that leaves 2 votes on the table because of percentages)

Broken down that way, you get a far more accurate system, and it doesn't blow up the entire process.

A proportional electoral distribution would probably lead to quite a few elections having no majority winner. The USA would have to figure out how to deal with that.

[photon]

Trump tweeting about the CIA thing more.

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

Well that's what happens when you're the boy who cried lizard people. Maybe it's because you react without thinking or looking at the evidence?

Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?

Aaaahahahah, it was! Clinton talked about it. The White House talked about it. Congressmen talked about it. It was all over the news, though if the headline didn't have "Trump" in it he probably doesn't see it. Trump doesn't even remember the debates where he talked about it??

EDIT: It's been so long since he had a press conference he doesn't remember, but funnily enough the last press conference he ASKED Russia to hack Clinton's email.

The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.

I thought he was going to increase military spending?

EDIT: Almost $3 Billion lost by Lockheed Martin investors today.

[DuffMan]

Love how Trump says to "move on" from Russians hacking, which is a pretty big thing, with big consequences, yet he just couldn't move on from the birther conspiracy or Rosie or hundreds of other things.

[photon]

In a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper the electors -- nine Democrats and one Republican -- argue that they require the information ahead of Dec. 19, when the Electoral College is set to meet and select the next president.

“The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations,” they wrote. “We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-russia-232498

I don't know if this would be a good idea or not. It's one thing to brief them on a concluded investigation where the facts and circumstances are known as much as can reasonably be know, but drawing conclusions while an investigation is in progress could easily give the false appearance of guilt or innocence (i.e. what Comney did).

[Senator Clay Davis]

Crazy ass John Bolton, Trump's deputy secretary of state nominee, has suggested Russia has nothing to do with anything, and the whole thing could be a false flag. Looking forward to Trump denying Sandy Hook ever happened the next time there is a school shooting. Oh and hey zamler? Bolton suggested Iraq was involved in some false flags around 9/11... More Bush era illegal wars incoming!

[Fuzz]

Isn't it great how you can distract the issue of any subject by the words "false flag" and get the nutters worked up at the same time? Magical words, those 2.

[AltaGuy]

How do you argue against that stuff?

-Maybe there's a link. We should investigate.
-False flag! Investigate those guys!
-Um, we haven't investigated the trigger yet.
-You're in on it!

[photon]

You don't argue against it, or at least not "honestly"... by that I mean you don't argue against someone who is unwilling to change their position with the intent of changing their mind. Or argue against someone who's trapped by fallacious reasoning. Or argue against someone who's arguing a position to make people mad, get attention, or otherwise just troll for negative responses. It's pointless.

If you want, you can argue against it for the benefit of others reading the discussion so others don't fall into the same trap. But it's a complete waste of mental time and effort to engage some people to try and change their minds.

-----

Looks like McConnell isn't taking Trump's position of dismissing things, this is good.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the man who controls the agenda in the upper chamber, differed with Trump in a Monday morning press conference, saying he believes Russian involvement in the U.S. election needs to be investigated.

He added, "I have the highest confidence in the intelligence community, and especially the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/12/505260...intel-agencies