Trump protestors

[Ten oz]

Memammal,

 

Yes it will answer the worries that there was hacking, or fraud, so there should be no objection to that.

 

But Stein was not close in any of the states she is filing. Why not ask for a recount in every state she was on the ballot? It looks more like she is filing as a public service, or at the request of Clinton. And it opens up the thought that you could in the future, file for a recount in any state you are on the presidential ballot in...if you have enough money. And the only reason you would file, is that you did not like the results. Understandable if you might be the winner. No rational other than not wanting Trump to be president, and wanting Hillary to be instead. She cannot possibly take any state unless there was massive fraud, or some incredible computer hack that took every Stein vote and turned it to a Hilary or Trump vote.

 

Regards, TAR

Jill Stein filed where she did on the recommendation of a group of computer analysts. They (the analysts) feel the there ar discrepancies between exit polling and the result and that the specific machines are susceptible to hacking and or error. They might be wrong. Their suspicion may be unfounded. All the same, that is why Stein filed where she did. If fraud is found I assume many other states will be recounted.

 

You seem to be implying that a recount is a slippery slope.That allowing a recount in this case will create a precendence for more recounts in the future. Assuming campaigns pay for the recounts and the results of the recounts are accurate I don't see the problem with recounts. More dangerous in my opinion is the fact that we just had foriegn cyber attacks against a candidate during an election and partisan investigations. That precedent is far more alarming. The thought that moving forward all important election may see cyber attacks and Congress ordering probes and investigation to taint the image of a candidate and generate suspicion is anti democratic in my opinion. Far worse than a candidate raising money and paying for votes to be recounted for accuracy.

[tar]

But if the fears of the analysts are founded, then why not recount as a matter of course? Why make it look or feel partisan? Like I want to be hacked and you don't or something?

election officials and Hilary's campaign and our governments, and Trump are all aware of the analyst's findings

Why has nobody, but someone who has nothing to benefit from the recount, filed for action? Routine audits are already being run. Exit polls could be wrong, as easily as the national polls were. Is polls being wrong, a reason for recount? I don't think so. There is a margin of error of 3% built into even the best of sampling polls. And people don't have to reveal who they voted for by fact or implication. People who voted for Trump and were embarrassed, like me, because Trump was demonized by the press and Hilary for so many weaknesses, that may or may not be true, might have said things to the pollsters, that did not reflect what was on their minds, or in their hearts.

Edited November 26, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Ten Oz,

 

You are saying two different things. Crime has dropped but people think there is more than there used to be. And that people erroneously blame the increase of crime on the city.

 

Huh?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Why can't you just admit there are blacks killing blacks in Chicago, at an alarming rate?

 

 

 

Them cherries aren't going to pick themselves.

[Delta1212]

But if the fears of the analysts are founded, then why not recount as a matter of course? Why make it look or feel partisan? Like I want to be hacked and you don't or something?

election officials and Hilary's campaign and our governments, and Trump are all aware of the analysts findings

Why has nobody, but someone who has nothing to benefit from the recount, filed for action? Routine audits are already being run. Exit polls could be wrong, as easily as the national polls were. Is polls being wrong, a reason for recount? I don't think so. There is a margin of error of 3% built into even the best of sampling polls. And people don't have to reveal who they voted for by fact or implication. People who voted for Trump and were embarrassed, like me, because Trump was demonized by the press and Hilary for so many weaknesses, that may or may not be true, might have said things to the pollsters, that did not reflect what was on their minds, or in their hearts.

What matter of course? How would that work? The only automatic recount provisions are for elections that are within specific very narrow margins which vary by state. There's no "a statistical analysis looked suspect to someone" provision for a recount, which means someone needs to request one in order for it to happen, and I believe that the request needs to be made, and subsequently paid for, by someone who was actually on the ballot.

 

You're effectively asking why they didn't go about this in a way that is legally impossible.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

No I am looking at it in a way, were the thing is, we should think "we" should have a recount. And all those legal ways and matter of course audits are already in process. Where I think it questionable, is when you frame it as "they" want a recount, putting me out of the group of people that would be highly upset if Russia had a way to hack into our elections and pick our presidents.

 

People that got less than 1% of the vote, have no reason to think a recount is going to go in their favor, so have no standing to make the claim that a recount would make them whole, and put them in the office the people wanted them put in. If a recount shows Hilary got more votes then Trump, and the election goes to Hilary, Stein still loses.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 26, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Delta1212,

 

No I am looking at it in a way, were the thing is, we think "we" should have a recount. And all those legal ways and matter of course audits are already in process. Where I think it questionable, is when you frame it as "they" want a recount, putting me out of the group of people that would be highly upset if Russia had a way to hack into our elections and pick our presidents.

 

People that got less than 1% of the vote, have no reason to think a recount is going to go in their favor, so have no standing to make the claim that a recount would make them whole, and put them in the office the people wanted them put in. If a recount shows Hilary got more votes then Trump, and the election goes to Hilary, Stein still loses.

 

Regards, TAR

I'm not sure what argument you are making, because you seem to simultaneously be arguing that if there is a problem, then everyone should care about it and that because the problem almost certainly cannot possibly have a direct impact on Stein's chances of being president, that she shouldn't be allowed to care.

[tar]

the protesters, those about who this thread is about, are of different types

Women that think trump is sexist, Mexican's that think they are going to get thrown out of the country, anarchists that protest for the fun of it, black lives matter supporters that want to show they are not racist and that our country will never turn against its citizens, or whatever reasons, we are trying to explore and think about in this thread

 

They are not monolithic in nature, as if they are speaking in one voice, one thing. And the main concern, was not that we were hacked by the Russians.

Ten Oz,

 

My point was, a recount, by someone who cannot win, must be partisan in nature. If the only goal is to ensure an unhacked, unfraud-filled election, the good people of the country are already on that case. The election officials, the poll challengers, the FBI, the CIA, the anti-hacking task force, Hilary's ground game people, everybody. Already looking that the thing was a fair, legal, thing, that we all look out for, no matter who we vote for.

 

Regards, TAR

I was a challenger once, at the polls in East Orange. Registered democrat. I did not look harder at somebody because they looked Republican. I was there, to make sure that everybody was who they said they were, and were registered voters, and that nobody "lost" anybody's vote or made it hard for anybody to cast their ballot.

to stand there and make sure nobody was disenfranchised, and nobody cheated or electioneered or twisted anybody's arm

 

320 million people in this country, most everyone to a man, wants everyone to vote their conscience even if they KNOW the other person is going to vote for a different candidate than they were. American citizens already expect a free and fair election, and everybody is already looking out for people cheating and stuff. Who would not immediately stop or report any witnessed fraud?

Edited November 26, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ tar, what Stein is doing is legal. No funny business. WI has agreed to the recount. It is happening. I don['t understand why you feel the need to claim Stein is a partisan and this is a conspiracy of some kind. Stein was very critical of Clinton during her campaign and fought to take votes away from Clinton.

[tar]

and think about it

 

If you were Russia, you would be interested in making us distrust each other. Misinformation, hacking stuff that would embarrass the DNC, AND things that would make Trump less strong on the world stage.

 

Making Trump look bad, was a good strategy for Obama and Hilary as they thought it would ensure his legacy and her election as the first woman president. But once he is going to be the actual president, it is not good for any citizen to make him look bad or weaken him. Russia has already, after the election, told us to get out of the way in Syria, if we are not going to fight terrorists. If the people of the country are not behind Trump, he cannot speak with as stern a voice to Russia. The protests are fine, as efforts to lobby the president elect toward looking out for certain principles and such, but important still, is to put the President elect, in a position where everyone has confidence in him, to do what is best for the U.S. and its people. If you personally feel he will not be your president, because he does not act and say the things you would like to hear from your president, I understand, but still there are 320 million of us to protect and serve. 258 million of us did not vote for Hillary, the 62 million that did vote for Hillary, of which I am pretty sure I am related to at least 7, 3 in my profile picture, all I think are still interested in seeing Trump's presidency work, or should be, for the sake of the other 258million human beings and fellow citizens, that need Trump to be a good president.

 

regards, TAR

Trump had bad words for Romney and vice-a-versa and he might be our Secretary of State. I don't think you proved that Stein is recounting for the public good. I think the two choices are, that she wants Hilary to win, or she wants Trump to lose.

[iNow]

I think we should rename the Gish Gallop to the Tar Trot [/metacomment]

[Carrock]

My point was, a recount, by someone who cannot win, must be partisan in nature. If the only goal is to ensure an unhacked, unfraud-filled election, the good people of the country are already on that case. The election officials, the poll challengers, the FBI, the CIA, the anti-hacking task force, Hilary's ground game people, everybody. Already looking that the thing was a fair, legal, thing, that we all look out for, no matter who we vote for.

 

Regards, TAR

The FBI would be better employed investigating whether their own, very public, evidence free fishing expedition for dodgy emails just before the election was enough to get Trump elected.

 

Perhaps FBI head should be an overtly political appointment.

[tar]

My claim that it was partisan was to point out, that if some other candidate with 2% of the vote in some other election, asked for a recount in an election in a state where the Wall Street protestor party won by 3000 votes, and the recount was funded by a Goldman-Sachs exec, it would be pretty obvious that there was partisanship involved.

 

Stein probably got some of Bernie's votes. Bernie was more socialist than both Hilary and Trump, but more like Hilary than Trump.

Carrock,

 

So now the FBI director is un-American?

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

My claim that it was partisan was to point out, that if some other candidate with 2% of the vote in some other election, asked for a recount in an election in a state where the Wall Street protestor party won by 3000 votes, and the recount was funded by a Goldman-Sachs exec, it would be pretty obvious that there was partisanship involved.

 

Stein probably got some of Bernie's votes. Bernie was more socialist than both Hilary and Trump, but more like Hilary than Trump.

Carrock,

 

So now the FBI director is un-American?

 

Regards, TAR

The law is being followed. Whether or not you approve of Stein's motives is irrelevant. Simply stating over and over that this is "partisan" isn't going anywhere. Are you saying it should be allowed? If you believe the law shouldn't allow 3rd party candidates or candidates with a low percentage of the vote to request recounts than make that case. If you think calling for a recount in CA makes more since than make that case.

[John Cuthber]

and think about it

 

If you were Russia, you would be interested in making us distrust each other. Misinformation, hacking stuff that would embarrass the DNC, AND things that would make Trump less strong on the world stage.

 

Making Trump look bad, was a good strategy for Obama and Hilary as they thought it would ensure his legacy and her election as the first woman president. But once he is going to be the actual president, it is not good for any citizen to make him look bad or weaken him. Russia has already, after the election, told us to get out of the way in Syria, if we are not going to fight terrorists. If the people of the country are not behind Trump, he cannot speak with as stern a voice to Russia. The protests are fine, as efforts to lobby the president elect toward looking out for certain principles and such, but important still, is to put the President elect, in a position where everyone has confidence in him, to do what is best for the U.S. and its people. If you personally feel he will not be your president, because he does not act and say the things you would like to hear from your president, I understand, but still there are 320 million of us to protect and serve. 258 million of us did not vote for Hillary, the 62 million that did vote for Hillary, of which I am pretty sure I am related to at least 7, 3 in my profile picture, all I think are still interested in seeing Trump's presidency work, or should be, for the sake of the other 258million human beings and fellow citizens, that need Trump to be a good president.

 

regards, TAR

Trump had bad words for Romney and vice-a-versa and he might be our Secretary of State. I don't think you proved that Stein is recounting for the public good. I think the two choices are, that she wants Hilary to win, or she wants Trump to lose.

"If you were Russia, you would be interested in making us distrust each other. "

​A good way to do that would be to support a divisive candidate- Someone who splits whites from blacks and men from women.

That would be Trump, wouldn't it?

" But once he is going to be the actual president, it is not good for any citizen to make him look bad or weaken him. "

 

Yes it is- it might stop him introducing quite such insane policies.

For examplpe, pointing out that the wall was a bloody stupid idea has led to him ditching it.

Criticism of bad policies is always the best thing to do.

 

" If the people of the country are not behind Trump, he cannot speak with as stern a voice to Russia. "

Most of the people (remember that- he didn't get the most votes) are not behind Trump.

How on earth do you come to believe that will affect how he speaks to Russia?

 

However the fact that he is generally perceived as a clown will affect how Russia reacts to what he says.

They might point out that, since he lies just about any time he opens his mouth, it doesn't matter what he says.

 

"but important still, is to put the President elect, in a position where everyone has confidence in him,"

Nice idea, but how is it going to happen. Most people didn't have enough confidence in him to vote for him.

Most people know that those who oppose him are the majority (and are also backed up by facts rather than Fox News).

So how could the people suddenly have confidence in him, when they know he's the same dunce who got less votes than his opponent?

 

BTW, if you are going to use Latin, do it right. Using vice-a-versa instead of vice versa makes you look pretentious and ignorant.

[tar]

We are already having the recount. I don't think it is wrong to have a recount if a candidate thinks they got more votes than another but the votes were not counted right. I don't think it is illegal to have a recount, and think it should stay legal, so that nobody is defrauded in the future. Just that in this case, there is absolutely no suggestion that Stein was defrauded. So why is she calling for a recount? You tell me, what you think, don't make up what you think I think.

[John Cuthber]

Why do you think a recount matters?

[Ten oz]

We are already having the recount. I don't think it is wrong to have a recount if a candidate thinks they got more votes than another but the votes were not counted right. I don't think it is illegal to have a recount, and think it should stay legal, so that nobody is defrauded in the future. Just that in this case, there is absolutely no suggestion that Stein was defrauded. So why is she calling for a recount? You tell me, what you think, don't make up what you think I think.

If there was fraud, errors, or etc than it most certianly does impact Stein just as it most certianly effects every citizen.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

You already view me as ignorant and pretentious, I doubt there is anything I can do about that.

-

 

However, my opinion is that Hilary and Obama did more to make people think the country was divided than anything Trump said or did.

 

For instance, he did not make me like or respect my wife or black neighbors or friends, any less. He drove no wedge. However liberal republican haters like some on this board, (overtone) have earned a living on demonizing republicans and framing us all as Homophobes, Racists, Immigrant hating, KKK loving, cheating, selfish capitalists, that mean to stomp on the weak and establish a gulag.

 

How what Hilary has said about Trump and anyone that follows him, and what you have said about me, and what iNow has said about religious people and , and conservatives and what phi has said about capitalists, somehow is not divisive, and Trump calling a fattened contestant fat and mocking a disabled guy and looking to reestablish law and order in Chicago, and looking to reestablish a southern border is divisive, is beyond me.

 

You put me and a bunch of other Americans in a bucket, define us, by your own imaginary labels, and then call us divisive. Nice.

 

Regards, TAR

really unifying on your part

 

If we are stronger together, then we should be on the same team.

Edited November 26, 2016 by tar

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

You already view me as ignorant and pretentious, I doubt there is anything I can do about that.

-

 

However, my opinion is that Hilary and Obama did more to make people think the country was divided than anything Trump said or did.

 

For instance, he did not make me like or respect my wife or black neighbors or friends, any less. He drove no wedge. However liberal republican haters like some on this board, (overtone) have earned a living on demonizing republicans and framing us all as Homophobes, Racists, Immigrant hating, KKK loving, cheating, selfish capitalists, that mean to stomp on the weak and establish a gulag.

 

How what Hilary has said about Trump and anyone that follows him, and what you have said about me, and what iNow has said about religious people and , and conservatives and what phi has said about capitalists, somehow is not divisive, and Trump calling a fattened contestant fat and mocking a disabled guy and looking to reestablish law and order in Chicago, and looking to reestablish a southern border is divisive, is beyond me.

 

You put me and a bunch of other Americans in a bucket, define us, by your own imaginary labels, and then call us divisive. Nice.

 

Regards, TAR

really unifying on your part

 

If we are stronger together, then we should be on the same team.

Seriously? You think building a wall isn't divisive?

"However liberal republican haters like some on this board, (overtone) have earned a living on demonizing republicans and framing us all as Homophobes, Racists, Immigrant hating, KKK loving, cheating, selfish capitalists, that mean to stomp on the weak and establish a gulag."

Strictly speaking, what we did was point out that you supported a set of candidates who did those things.

Of course, if you oppose them, yet support a candidate who does them all, can you see why we might get confused?

You might be interested in this but I suspect it warrants its own thread.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/26/breaking-clinton-campaign-stuns-america-makes-big-recount-announcement-details/

[tar]

John,

 

That is welcome news. If Hilary actually won, I would back her fully as my president.

 

I am glad she has asked for the recounts. She is the one, that should have, in the first place.

 

Regards, TAR

Are you willing to accept the results of the election, after the recounts, and support the president elect, whether it is Trump or Clinton?

 

Well actually we will still have to wait for the electoral college to decide.

 

Interesting year, indeed.

I picked Trump over Clinton, but the most of the rest of my family picked Hilary, I think, so there is an upside to either outcome.

[iNow]

I respect and support the office of the president and all that brings with it.

 

The individual holding that office, however, does not automatically get my respect and support. Those must be earned.

 

My duty as a free citizen is to hold our elected officials to the highest possible standards and not blindly support them simply because of their title.

 

When you respect and support a person regardless of what they say and do, then frankly sir you are, despite your positive intentions, being un-American.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Well then you misunderstand me. When I say I will fully back Hilary as my president, I am saying the same thing you just said about respecting the office.

 

I will surely disagree with Hilary's positions. More so than I will disagree with Trump's I think. I could be wrong, but in either case, he or she is going to be my president. Contrary to the protestor's sign "not my president" or the burning of our flag that occurred during the protests.

 

It will be hard to have either, but for different reasons. It will be better to have either, but for different reasons.

 

Just want to keep it real. If the recount shows that Hilary won, you know that won't be the end of it...this year.

 

People protect themselves and their own beliefs and view of the world. Nobody likes to be wrong. Everybody likes to be right.

 

I don't know why, but I think this little piece of advice, that I gave my nephew's squabbling children yesterday, applies to all of us, and to this election. "you like to feel good, and your sister likes to feel good, don't do a thing that makes your sister feel bad, do something that makes you both feel good."

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

I meant, like you just said, to respect the office. I never gave up my right to object to policies and actions. You are speaking like Trump is a demagogue that any true American would keep from taking power in order to maintain peace and freedom and democracy in the world. I read the wiki definition of demagogue the other day, and it was like it was written with Trump in mind, but 60 million, or lets say with a recount and correction of a 7 percent Russian hack, 55 million of your fellow Americans voted for the guy. And Trump creating a gulag in America is about as likely as ISIS establishing a Caliphate here.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 26, 2016 by tar

[Carrock]

Carrock,

 

So now the FBI director is un-American?

 

Regards, TAR

[irony warning]

Not at all.

 

From JOSEPH MCCARTHY - AMERICAN PATRIOT

 

Senator Joe McCarthy is one of the strongest pro-American figures in the history of the United States. Despite many attempts by socialists to demonize McCarthy and "McCarthyism" with revisionist history, McCarthy's achievements shine through the propaganda. At a time when America was threatened by a murderous, backward, anti-freedom ideology of Soviet communism, Joseph McCarthy was a champion of capitalism and Democracy.

Comey's breaking protocols and politicising the FBI to help prevent wrong thinking people electing un-American Clinton is right thinking McCarthyism.

 

Trump is pro Putin out of expedience, but give him a safe chance with an actual communist like Fidel Castro (deceased) and his vitriol demonstrates he's pro-American.

[/irony warning]

Edited November 27, 2016 by Carrock

[John Cuthber]

...

I picked Trump over Clinton, but the most of the rest of my family picked Hilary, I think, so there is an upside to either outcome.

Did it occur to you that there might be a good reason why you are in the minority?

[Ten oz]

Posted by tar on 7 February 2016 - 03:17 AM in Politics

If Trump or Cruz somehow gets the nomination, I think I will revert to my democrat roots.

Regards, TAR

Posted by tar on 26 January 2016 - 10:57 PM in Politics

If Fox is successful in taking Trump down a few notches and Trump, who is not a serious candidate in my mind, nor a person fit to be my representative to the world as head of State, then Fox would be successful in doing the country a favor.

 

If David Duke is supporting Trump, then Trump is not the kind of person that would be a good president of all the people.

 

But likewise, if Hilary hates the Republicans, and the Drug Companies and the Iranians, she is not the kind of person that would make a good president of all the people.

 

Stop the hate, Dump Trump.

 

Regards, TAR

 

democrat

republican

independent

trump supporter

Posted by tar on 20 January 2016 - 10:22 AM in Politics

Thread,

I saw yesterday that Sarah Palin is supporting Trump. As I already was hoping the republicans would find a real candidate, which seemed to inexplicably be not happening, I now am completely convinced that we are in trouble and in danger of going the fascist, xenophobic route...or perhaps the socialist route as some people like me might vote for Sanders if the battle comes down to a Trump/Palin versus Sanders/Biden ticket for instance.