Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jocassee on October 17, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
-
Let us hypothesize that in three weeks one of two things happens
1) The election is demonstrably rigged with numerous documented irregularities
2) If it is not proven, enough people believe that it was rigged to make proof unnecessary
What happens then?
-
Let us hypothesize that in three weeks one of two things happens
1) The election is demonstrably rigged with numerous documented irregularities
2) If it is not proven, enough people believe that it was rigged to make proof unnecessary
What happens then?
I'm seeing a lot of news stories about state-level fraud investigations going on. And I don't recall seeing that in 2008 or 2012. My hope is that this means the worst of it is going to get ferreted out before Nov. 8th, and the rest of the fraud will be waved off by this, or scaled down at least.
What I'm wondering is if the DOJ tries to intimidate/muscle local state and municipal LEA's from investigating vote fraud.
Or... maybe Russian hacking will cancel out Soros-backed Smartmatic machine fraud. [tinfoil]
-
What happens then?
I assume you mean that the election is rigged (or seems rigged) in Clinton's favor. Under option 1, Congress holds multiple hearings/panels/investigations, in which nothing is resolved. Under option 2, another populist movement arises, like the recent Tea Parties. Again, nothing is resolved. The Left may very well orchestrate Trump's assassination.
If you mean that Trump "wins," then either option results in Occupy/BLM riots, with arsons, assaults, and probably murders. Under option 2, the establishment press declares Clinton to be the actual president, and seeks her response to every move of "President" Trump. There will be a succesful bi-partisan effort to create an office of co-president, or to in some other way grant actual leadership to HRC. Under option 1, Trump, Pence, and all those convicted of voter fraud are hanged on television, Saddam Hussein style. Trump cabinet members, and other, lesser villains (and their families) are castrated, and sent to labor camps, which will operate as Obamacare exchanges, and same-sex wedding cake bakeries.
-
Of course there is fraud, the whole world saw it in Minnesota in the Franken senate race a few years ago. I don't think Franken was personally involved, I think it was orchestrated by our Democrat secretary of state (who ought to be in prison.) Multiple recounts, and every time Franken came up short Ritchie said, "Wait a minute, I think there's another box of ballots in the trunk of my car" and counted them again. He certified it as soon as he got a count that he liked.
IIRC, we had a Republican governor at the time. It never gets investigated. Everyone is pissed at Trump for mentioning it because it's not supposed to be talked about.
-
I'm going with wailing and the gnashing of teeth and then in a few months after "Dancing With the Stars" is back on, business as usual and all is forgotten.
-
If Trump wins I expect a rehash of the 2000 election where it ends up in the supreme court.
-
Here is what I am getting at by asking this question.
I read pro trump blogs, I keep track of all the weird rumors and conspiracy theories going around.
I don't think many trump voters will accept a close election that goes to Hillary.
Irregularities will be found whether they exist or not. They will be broadcast whether the reports are accurate or not and pushed as truth.
One of the saddest things about this election cycle is the predictability of the conspiracy theories.
-
Relevant:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/10/robert-farago/talk-armed-revolution-clinton-victory-foreshadows/
-
Each and every election, there is widespread tin foilery about widespread election fraud and even more insane tin foil notions about Bush or Obama somehow declaring martial law to stay in power. Hasn't happened. Probably won't happen. And yet it persists.
-
Each and every election, there is widespread tin foilery about widespread election fraud and even more insane tin foil notions about Bush or Obama somehow declaring martial law to stay in power. Hasn't happened. Probably won't happen. And yet it persists.
Probably won't, but we've never had a candidate say from the bully pulpit that the election is rigged. We've never had a VP candidate have to tell a town hall participant that armed rebellion is not something he endorses.
On the conservative blogs there is a change in language from 2008 and 2012. The mood then was, "This is bad, but we can work on it, we can fight back." Now the mood is, "If we can't win this year, we can't win at all, and this puts new options on the table."
Just my read.
-
Probably won't, but we've never had a candidate say from the bully pulpit that the election is rigged. We've never had a VP candidate have to tell a town hall participant that armed rebellion is not something he endorses.
On the conservative blogs there is a change in language from 2008 and 2012. The mood then was, "This is bad, but we can work on it, we can fight back." Now the mood is, "If we can't win this year, we can't win at all, and this puts new options on the table."
Just my read.
I dunno--last time I was on this forum was 2009-2010 and there were quite a few posts talking about armed rebellion--sometimes under the breath, sometimes outright, so I don't feel like this is new (and this forum isn't really extreme). Things seems calmer right now than it did back then. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
The difference now is you have someone very high up (Trump) giving that idea legitimacy. Last time around you had the candidates themselves telling people to calm down, now it's just Pence telling people to calm down--but Trump is telling people to get riled up.
My Facebook feed...that's hard to tell. During the Obama run it was full of openly racist stuff and that's not here now (obviously), but there's a lot of "Killary". Lots of sex jokes about the Clintons. I don't see much violence, though, related to the elections.
I think things were more tense when the BLM (not Black Lives Matter--the other BLM) stuff was ongoing. That was the high water mark.
I hope Hillary leaves guns alone after she's elected--Obama was smart to leave that alone for the most part. Clinton is more likely to try and do something though and that's more likely to escalate to bad situations.
Prediction for 2018: Everyone one both sides wishes Obama was back in office and Hillary doesn't stand a chance in 2020--unless the RNC manages to shoot itself in the head again.
-
Probably won't, but we've never had a candidate say from the bully pulpit that the election is rigged. We've never had a VP candidate have to tell a town hall participant that armed rebellion is not something he endorses.
On the conservative blogs there is a change in language from 2008 and 2012. The mood then was, "This is bad, but we can work on it, we can fight back." Now the mood is, "If we can't win this year, we can't win at all, and this puts new options on the table."
Just my read.
I would guess that from your age that you probably don't remember the Clinton years. You were roughly kindergarten to a high school freshman during that time. So I can't make a blanket statement about your political/national awareness during that time, I can make a WAG that like most of us at those ages it wasn't super-deep.
Granted, the media was making mountains out of molehills as always, and they did their absolute best to paint anyone right-of-center as complicit in the Oklahoma City bombing... but the militia movement and the whole "We might need to rise up and do something..." thoughts among the population were definitely very very real.
The '94 GOP landslide wins on the state level, and retaking the House for the first time in 40 years did help diffuse it, but not all of it. And the Left/MSM, and Clinton himself doing all they could to lay OKC at our feet, and Rush Limbaugh's didn't help.
If you could have cut the Obama administration out from time and transplanted it whole, without context into the years of '92-2000, the revolt might have actually happened.
-
Here's a video of the Commissioner of the Board of Elections for NYC talking about voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0&index=60&list=WL
-
Here's a video of the Commissioner of the Board of Elections for NYC talking about voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0&index=60&list=WL
Beat me to it.
-
Each and every election, there is widespread tin foilery about widespread election fraud and even more insane tin foil notions about Bush or Obama somehow declaring martial law to stay in power. Hasn't happened. Probably won't happen. And yet it persists.
Is it tinfoil when there have actually been charges and convictions? And numerous video clips with campaign workers intimating and aiding election fraud? How many incidents must occur for it to lose the tinfoil?
-
During the 2012 elections, watching the woman in front of me picking down a list of names in the registration book with the "help" of the befuddled elderly poll worker until she found one "that was her" made me all warm and fuzzy inside.
-
Relevant:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/10/robert-farago/talk-armed-revolution-clinton-victory-foreshadows/
Too many couch potatoes for a real revolution today. :mad: [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
It's not gonna be close
At all
Will that make a difference?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
It's not gonna be close
At all
Will that make a difference?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Actually yes.
Then we talk about secession.
Just like in 1860--if you don't have a chance at seizing the base of power, you create your own.
I'm not saying its a great idea. But minds are gonna move that way.
I would guess that from your age that you probably don't remember the Clinton years.
I was born in 87. One of the original Rush Babies. I didn't know a lot that was going on and had no frame of reference for it. Didn't know anything about due process, rule of law, foreign policy, the constitution. Politically i was just along for the ride with my mom and dad. I didn't have any contact with the militia movement or anything back then. Most of what I know about that aspect I learned from Mike van der Boegh (writings and in person).
So what you're telling me is I'm not crazy?
-
No chance of an organized, large scale revolt. Any stomach or desire for such has been bred out of the populace.
-
I hope Hillary leaves guns alone after she's elected--
Either you're joking, or you are the world's greatest optimist. There isn't a snowball's chance in heel that Hillary won't go after our guns and the Second Amendment full-bore if she gets elected.
-
No chance of an organized, large scale revolt. Any stomach or desire for such has been bred out of the populace.
Unless the military grows a spine, and remembers that each member of the armed services swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States -- not the President, not the Congress, not the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 -- the Constitution.
-
No chance of an organized, large scale revolt. Any stomach or desire for such has been bred out of the populace.
As long as they don't start *expletive deleted*ing around with pro sports and the reality TV shows they have nothing to worry about.
Jack with the Stupor Bowl and all hell will break loose.
-
As long as they don't start *expletive deleted*ing around with pro sports and the reality TV shows they have nothing to worry about.
Jack with the Stupor Bowl and all hell will break loose.
The Left is already playing hob with pro sports. Can "reality" be far behind?
-
Just in case there are protests the day after the election, I am avoiding travel that day. Let's hope it's an unnecessary precaution.
-
No chance of an organized, large scale revolt. Any stomach or desire for such has been bred out of the populace.
Eh... considering the vast number of vets that have been cycled through the sandbox, and the noises the fed.gov itself has been making about watching them, putting them on "terror indicator lists" etc.
And for the rest of us, "our side" so to speak, has always had it's hands tied, jobs, kids, mortgage etc. Whereas many of "their side" has less to lose, urban poor, academia, renting etc.
Broad brush generalizations, but you get the idea.
Rough analogy, things get froggy enough, the hammer will fall. Venezuela level, for sure (or what Americans would percieve as "Venezuela level"), or just maybe more like a level of Columbia when it was at it's worst with the FARC and narco-terror.
-
Of course there is fraud, the whole world saw it in Minnesota in the Franken senate race a few years ago. I don't think Franken was personally involved, I think it was orchestrated by our Democrat secretary of state (who ought to be in prison.) Multiple recounts, and every time Franken came up short Ritchie said, "Wait a minute, I think there's another box of ballots in the trunk of my car" and counted them again. He certified it as soon as he got a count that he liked.
IIRC, we had a Republican governor at the time. It never gets investigated. Everyone is pissed at Trump for mentioning it because it's not supposed to be talked about.
As a former Minnesotan, I paid some attention to that race. As I recall, dozens of precincts turned in vote counts that exceeded the total of actual ballots cast . . . but these counts were accepted. And Tim Pawlenty, the MN governor at the time, sat idly by with his thumb up his 3rd point of contact and did nothing as the election was stolen in plain sight. And Franken provided the winning vote for Obamacare. <expletive> <expletive> <string of expletives.>
Some years before, Congressman "B1 Bob" Dornan of California "lost" an election in which a post-election sampling documented more fraudulent ballots cast (mostly by illegals) than his opponent's margin of "victory." Yet the courts allowed the result to stand.
A bit more recently, in the last Presidential election in 50+ precincts in IIRC Philadelphia, BHO beat Romney by a margin of 19,605 to 0.
Almost 20k votes cast, and NOBODY voted for Romney, even by mistake. These are the kinds of results that sham elections in the Philippines delivered to Ferdinand Marcos.
What happened?
Nothing.
So . . . if HRC wins and there's some controversy about the legitimacy of the result, expect people like Ryan, McConnell, and JEB! to be in the forefront of those defending the result and denouncing the critics.
-
So . . . if HRC wins and there's some controversy about the legitimacy of the result, expect people like Ryan, McConnell, and JEB! to be in the forefront of those defending the result and denouncing the critics.
Would be ironic, from a Bush.
Putting a D. election in question would also put R. elections in question. Can't have that. R.s are go-along get-along guys.
-
Hillary has already stated that she is going to do everything she can, to include Executive Orders, to go after guns and the 2nd Amendment.
-
Putting a D. election in question would also put R. elections in question. Can't have that. R.s are go-along get-along guys.
This.
No one that matters is going to even give lip service to the existence of election fraud, because they were themselves elected, or appointed by someone elected.
-
About six weeks ago I read an article regarding fractional voting software. This was a 'bug' that could be put into the voting machine software that would give one candidate more that 1 vote for every vote cast and the other less that a full vote for each vote they received ... excellent article, reliable source, well documented as being untraceable .... I can't find the article to share a link .... does anyone else recall such an article and have a link they could share ?
:old:
-
About six weeks ago I read an article regarding fractional voting software. This was a 'bug' that could be put into the voting machine software that would give one candidate more that 1 vote for every vote cast and the other less that a full vote for each vote they received ... excellent article, reliable source, well documented as being untraceable .... I can't find the article to share a link .... does anyone else recall such an article and have a link they could share ?
:old:
I understand what you are saying but it doesn't make mathematical or programming sense. I am curious to read the article if anyone else turns it up
-
So, Hillary Clinton could be the first f president.
Sorry, the "emale" was deleted.
-
I understand what you are saying but it doesn't make mathematical or programming sense. I am curious to read the article if anyone else turns it up
Actually it would be pretty simple:
When a vote is entered, multiply by some number (eg 1.001, 0.999) add to current total, store internal running totals as a float, then convert to integer for readout/display.
Could be done even easier / more surreptitious by messing around with how floats are treated (since the leading fractional digit is typically truncated), one could easily manipulate the code to treat one entry as leading 1, and the other as leading 0.
Could also be done by taking advantage of integer wrap and/or a fence-post problem type issue.
Hell, you could even do it by storing totals in such a way where a standard I/o process could only partially read the correct number (like store a total as numeric text rather than a binary integer in an unprotected area of memory on a boundary of some other normal system process that would periodically overwrite trailing digits.
By choosing the process or location, you could effectively have the system round one total down every now and then, while leaving the other alone, and all it would look like is crappy programming, and even then, really subtle.
-
So, Hillary Clinton could be the first f president.
Sorry, the "emale" was deleted.
:laugh: :laugh: Witty, you are.
-
I'm not familiar w/ this website but it does discus fractional voting ....
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
-
Just remember.... your legitimate vote cancels out one fraudulent vote.
Don't sit at home.
-
So, Hillary Clinton could be the first f president.
Oh, she'll be an 'F' all right . . .
-
James O'Keefe doing what he does best.
"We gotta win this mother *expletive deleted*er." Part I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
-
not to worry. Professor Joshua A. Douglas of UK, and barack himself said today, that all these fears of vote fraud are unfounded.
-
CNN put up, and then quickly took back down it's headline of Obama states there is no voter fraud, right after Project Veritas Part II dropped. :rofl:
-
CNN dropped the story because they want it to go away, not because of the Project Veritas release. If they don't talk about it, then it isn't happening.
-
As has been pointed out in other places regarding the last election:
In every state without voter ID laws, Obama won.
In every state with voter ID laws, Obama lost.
-
As has been pointed out in other places regarding the last election:
In every state without voter ID laws, Obama won.
In every state with voter ID laws, Obama lost.
Doesn't that just mean that red states have voter ID laws?
-
Doesn't that just mean that red states have voter ID laws?
Mainly. Since it takes a GOP majority and governor to enact voter ID usually.
It will be interesting to see what happens in WI. We've been "very red" in terms of state politics, majority red in the U.S. House, majority blue over the years in the Senate, but blue since Reagan in the Presidential elections.
Honestly, we need Voter ID and that purple ink they used in Iraq's elections.