These would be state crimes, and laws vary by state.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?
- Thread starter Joey McGee
- Start date
These would be state crimes, and laws vary by state.
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
Hillary 100% is equally ridiculous if strictly interpreted. Of course some rounding is allowed in the normal informal meaning of "100%" and today it may be a reasonable answer, but on the dates many of those votes were made it was not.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
And yet we are turning out to be right. Perhaps there was evidence there you didn't recognize.
davefoc
Philosopher
The poll wasn't well worded and the use of the term 100% might reasonably be interpreted to mean only very likely since very few events (certainly not this one) are predictable with certainty.
Still, I was more sympathetic to people that chose the Clinton 100% option than the Trump 100% option. For quite awhile Clinton has had an easier path to an electoral college win than Trump. Picking Trump might have been based on some sort of insight that could be right that I wasn't aware of but picking what was generally believed to be the less likely of two outcomes as certain or nearly certain seems to be just a bad bet.
The more likely situation, as suggested by a poster above, is that people just voted for the outcome they wanted and wanted to promote rather than vote based on reality.
I think also the Clinton 100% voters made a reasonable guess that given the complete scumbag Trump is, it was likely either that more bad stuff was going to come out or some of the bad stuff that was already out might gain more traction. My wife, (based purely on her gut feel) has put Trump's chances at 0% for quite awhile. I have to credit her gut feel a bit here because I always believed that Trump was enough in control to be able to simulate a non crazy scum bag for long enough that he could win the election. She didn't think so. She saw him as a nut job that wouldn't be able to hide it. It turns out that she was right about that. But I don't think there is enough evidence available right now to know that being a nut job would make it so that Trump wouldn't win the election.
Last edited:
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
I was a visitor to Sweden. The women did not even stand to the side. They were fully dressed in street clothes. And they stood in front of the place were all the swim suits were hanging. I looked at my Swedish friend, and he did not say anything. We stood in front of the women (no other place to stand), and took off our swimsuits and went to shower.
No, I did not go to the womens shower, and if I did it would be not big deal. I do not walk around with perverted thoughts like it seems many do. In the 1990's in Cape Town I used to go to a nudist beach because it was quiet, with great sand and water, and great scenery. I went early, before most people. But it was like any other beach, except for all the boats and yachts that hung around perving with cameras and video cams.
When I hear the foul language on the New York subway (every second word a m-f), and I see the Hollywood movies with violence, sadism, foul language, perversion, and toilet humor - and some with kids in them, I wonder about the hypocrisy of the USA.
Even more hypocritical is that it is the "liberals" who are supposedly most offended. However I suspect it is to try to change the votes of Christian supporters leaning toward Trump. Doubly hypocritical.
I knew the that the US had the greatest propaganda machine in history, but the amazing thing is that it works so well despite the obviousness of their goals. "Well, they tell the truth, do they not?" When does the distortion of an irrelevant truth become one big whopping deceit?
On the BBC they interviewed some women who support Trump. It is his policies and his over-all personality. He is not running to become the Pope, they said.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
Donald is by far the most ignorant candidate ever. He doesn't know **** about policy. I am 100% positive I know a lot more than him. I am not being even slightly hyperbolic.
And his personality is one of a total scumbag and extreme narcissist. He definitely has at least one personality disorder.
His followers worship him because he is a bigoted piece of garbage just like they are. Him being an ignorant, self confessed sexual predator with an extremely obvious personality disorder is ok with them, so long as he hates brown people.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 33,063
The reason why we went to Iraq (costing 1,000s of soldier's lives, 100,000's of civilians and trillions of dollars) was that no one in the Pentagon, NSA or CIA dared to contradict the Administration, i.e. Cheney, Bush. Same with the media that did not dare to really question the war whilst in preparation.
If there is one attribute we have seen in Trump (but not Clinton) over and over it is that he doesn't accept data that he doesn't like. He will always try to discredit a source he disagrees with (including the US intelligence services).
So with Trump, a repeat of a post-9/11 intelligence failure is very likely, since he too only hears what he wants to hear and is willing to crush the career of anyone who disagrees.
If there is one attribute we have seen in Trump (but not Clinton) over and over it is that he doesn't accept data that he doesn't like. He will always try to discredit a source he disagrees with (including the US intelligence services).
So with Trump, a repeat of a post-9/11 intelligence failure is very likely, since he too only hears what he wants to hear and is willing to crush the career of anyone who disagrees.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
Donald knows more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe him.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Unfair, I think. As I recall Cheney created a new White House security agency under his own control to get around the professionals' objections.
That's more than fair.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Regarding this:
I think Nate Silver and the other 538 podcasters have talked about PPP doing this kind of thing. Essentially, they know that people are going to vote up the joke question on the survey and provide them with the headline. In a previous poll, I think PPP asked voters if they preferred Donald Trump or lice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ss-popular-than-lice-poll-finds-a7022551.html
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Great. I am very glad that your country and some other countries you visited have healthy attitudes towards nudity. Unfortunately, it has ZERO relevance in this discussion because what Trump was doing is absolutely nothing like what you were doing. Trump had no valid reason to go (unannounced) into the dressing room. He is a creep who finds models in a state of undress titillating.
OK. Again, good for you. In America we expect presidential candidates to not use words that are heard in subways, movies, and songs. Furthermore, you are ignoring that the Republicans spent two decades billing themselves as the Family-Values party. They are the ones who are most interested in making sure certain words are not used by candidates.
But this is not a hill I a willing to die on. If you want to believe being upset at the word itself is a hypocritical stance for Americans, have at it.
Yes. And if Trump were a very respectable man who could show with tangible evidence that he has respected women for years, then I would agree that this tape should be ignored.
But Trump cannot provide that evidence. In fact all the evidence is pointing the other way. There are dozen of quotes from Trump's own mouth showing he has little to no respect for women and that he cannot conceive of judging them by anything but their looks.
This tape happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. You can talk all day about how insignificant this little straw was, but in the end, it was the tipping point. Arguing about why the tape should or should not be given weight in deciding is meaningless. All the other stuff was already available. The tape just made it harder to pretend that the room is not on fire.
Last edited:
Yeah in the Swedish example if a woman who didn't have a male child with them kept going into the men's locker room and just stood around staring at naked men I suspect the Swedes would regard that as unacceptable/criminal behaviour.
Conversely given some of Donald's remarks I wouldn't give him a pass on this behaviour even if Ivanka had been one of the contestants in the dressing room...
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
The non-contradiction for even Republicans would be that his statement bragging about this behavior to Stern was pertinent to the Miss Universe competition. Those are models. Many are, shall we say, er, scientifically enhanced, already. They're selling HOT.
The complaints from the contestants are from Miss Teen USA. The upper age reach is in the acceptable dirty-old-man level... 19. The lower end is 14, though. Physically mature, perhaps, but I sincerely doubt that all these Trump supporters would stand idly by if a fifty year old janitor was found to be walking through the dressing room while their precious little flowers were undressing.
How about Roman Polanski? Bill Clinton? Other noted liberals? Is it okay for them to go to the junior high school in Republican Acres and hang out in the girls' locker room. "Haw, haw. It's okay girls, nothing I haven't seen before!"
Belz...
Fiend God
If there's one thing all humans are, it's hypocritical.
Belz...
Fiend God
How is any of this hatred of women?
Belz...
Fiend God
Par for the course for humanity.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
@Argumemnon
There are some who are less hypocritical. You? Me?
There are some who are less hypocritical. You? Me?
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Is election fixing possible in the USA? And is it undetectable?
What stops people from voting twice or more in different places?
Do voters have their thumbs marked? (There are ways to defeat that.) Are thumbprints taken?
Do you have to register an address to stop gerrymandering? Can a voter assume the identity of a dead person?
In South Africa, it was ruled unconstitutional that the national voters roll did not have verified addresses. People were being bussed in and registered themselves to vote, giving fake addresses for key districts. Strangely enough, the computerized national voters rolls suddenly had as many as two thirds of the addresses "disappear" from the data base just before the municipal elections. No backups either. The ConCourt gave the Election Commission 18 months to fix it.
Given the large number of squatter camp people (millions), many "addresses" consist of the geographical coordinates of their tin shanty. Of course SA has a problem of overcrowding. One 2meter x 2 meter shack could have six to 10 people in it. In Hillbrow (very densely populated buildings), they even rent out the doorways. People also have 2 addresses. Their work address in the cities and their home address in the rural areas.
It seems that Democrats are more likely to engage in "dirty tricks" from two articles I have read. One about dead votes, and one about bird-dogging. Something about morality.
What stops people from voting twice or more in different places?
Do voters have their thumbs marked? (There are ways to defeat that.) Are thumbprints taken?
Do you have to register an address to stop gerrymandering? Can a voter assume the identity of a dead person?
In South Africa, it was ruled unconstitutional that the national voters roll did not have verified addresses. People were being bussed in and registered themselves to vote, giving fake addresses for key districts. Strangely enough, the computerized national voters rolls suddenly had as many as two thirds of the addresses "disappear" from the data base just before the municipal elections. No backups either. The ConCourt gave the Election Commission 18 months to fix it.
Given the large number of squatter camp people (millions), many "addresses" consist of the geographical coordinates of their tin shanty. Of course SA has a problem of overcrowding. One 2meter x 2 meter shack could have six to 10 people in it. In Hillbrow (very densely populated buildings), they even rent out the doorways. People also have 2 addresses. Their work address in the cities and their home address in the rural areas.
It seems that Democrats are more likely to engage in "dirty tricks" from two articles I have read. One about dead votes, and one about bird-dogging. Something about morality.
Others can respond in detail, but the first thing to understand is that in the U.S. there are no "national" elections or "national" voter rolls. Every state conducts its own elections, usually at the city or county level, and most poll workers are volunteers from both parties. Voters provide suitable proof of identity and residence when they register to vote, and they are generally required to vote at an assigned polling place where their names are checked off when they present themselves, but the rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It might be possible for someone to register and vote using false ID, but there's no evidence that that actually happens. Fewer than half of registered voters actually vote in most elections anyway. What reason would there be to add a few false names to the lists? A "get out the vote" drive for your side would be more effective. And the majority of U.S. governors at present are Republicans; they're certainly not going to encourage or permit Democrats to "rig" their elections.
Here's a basic guide to U.S. voting requirements:
http://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
Here's a basic guide to U.S. voting requirements:
http://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
Last edited: