So, Trump won the US presidency. What having someone with no political experience (although with plenty of business cunning) in control of the world's no. 1 superpower will mean for the American people and the world is to be seen.
So, Trump won the US presidency. What having someone with no political experience (although with plenty of business cunning) in control of the world's no. 1 superpower will mean for the American people and the world is to be seen.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
Pro Trump Also - less puppet than others but very lobby'st friendly i quess...since it come's from business area
hillary did'it :))
Dont know how People could even vote for Trump.. insane.
Maybe useful to remember that H. Clinton (whom I don't particularly support) got 3 millions more votes than D. Trump. This one was only elected president because of a somewhat archaic voting system (the "winner takes all" rule, plus a few peoples in rural zone electing more delegates than 10 more people in urban zones, and finally a few hundred voters in the swing states having more weight than several hundred thousand voters in California or New York).
Last edited by Renk; 25.08.20 at 06:39.
Primo Avulso Non Deficit Alter
Here's an interesting article about Hillary winning the popular vote (which she did) and the electoral college system in the United States.
http://factmyth.com/factoids/hillary...-popular-vote/
Indirect elections seem like something that made sense in the early days of democracy, but are now easy to manipulate or at least influence. My country did away with them in the early 90s for that reason. Then again, I'm not an expert in American politics and this particular aspect is unlikely to change in any case.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
someone already said that 'those who count the votes decide the winner'
so the real question is can you trust the counting/voting system and people directly in charge of it or those overseeing it? somehow i doubt that the deep state would just let such an ace (trump card) slip through their ever greedy fingers, as they already own the (majority of the) mainstream media, entertainment industry, finance, politics, large global business corporations and the like
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP FROM A DISGRUNTLED VOTER/FORMER SUPPORTER.
Remember when I volunteered for that election work? We had to count the votes with at least two reps from different parties watching (but not touching anything), to ensure everyone was keeping an eye on everyone. Afterwards, the tally for each table was signed by all people present, scanned and posted online for transparency purposes. I think that's fairly good... we had a brief fling with electronic voting machines, and while they made the counting process much easier, they were later banned due to concerns that individual ballots could be invalidated (therefore indirectly favoring the other candidates).
In any case, the fairest and most transparent counting system to ever exist would only prevent hard fraud. There are other ways to manipulate an election so that people will want to vote for you even if it's against their interests - media influence, social networking, appealing to emotions and fears rather than objective policies - and unfortunately they're the rule and not the exception nowadays.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
were all polling places covered by oversight like that or just 'most of them'?Originally Posted by anon
were there live streams available at all polling places, showing the ballot boxes or ballots at all times?
were the boxes inspected prior to sealing or they arrived already sealed? were they inspected upon arrival?
did you count the number of people who cast their ballots and compare that to the total sum of tallied votes?
what happens while a volunteer temporarily leaves the polling area (lunch, toilet,...)
reps may be accomplices, especially if we are talking about large parties or their known satellites, to whom losing is not an option
small party reps may be for sale as these parties are desperate for more votes
volunteers are an unknown factor, they may or may not be involved in suspicious activity
what happens when there are too many volunteers?
some pre-election polls are known to be fairly accurate, up to a few percent error, thus there may not be a need to even attempt hard fraud, at least in the absence of a tight raceThere are other ways to manipulate an election...
in the USA, with their mandatory two-party system or elsewhere with 1-2-3 traditionally large parties, all it takes is to have sufficient access to influential persons within those parties - then it does not matter who wins, something along the lines of:
either way, the globalist deep state New World Order leaders are hell-bent on covering all available angles and they do not shy away from even the most unthinkable or unethical solution in such pursuitOriginally Posted by Sun Tzu
All polling places were covered.
No live streams; such a thing would conflict with secret ballot and other laws (voting takes place in schools during a Sunday, installing video surveillance in school buildings is not legal).
Voting boxes had to be inspected and sealed with volunteers and party reps present, then this was logged in a journal with timestamp and signatures.
The number of voters was counted in two separate journals as they arrived and had to match 100% afterwards.
There were two volunteers per table; breaks were allowed but had to be logged in the journal, and the second one couldn't move until the first returned.
Not sure about your comment regarding small party reps. If they're desperate for more votes, they would be corrupt in their own favor, but if they're up for sale, wouldn't the "buyer" want to get votes for his party instead?reps may be accomplices, especially if we are talking about large parties or their known satellites, to whom losing is not an option
small party reps may be for sale as these parties are desperate for more votes
volunteers are an unknown factor, they may or may not be involved in suspicious activity
what happens when there are too many volunteers?
Attempting to actively interfere with or manipulate the voting process is punishable with prison time, then again nothing's illegal if you don't get caught
The last question is good and I don't know the answer, but since there can't be more than two volunteers per table, I suppose they just send the rest home.
Polls can give a good outline but also say whatever who's behind them wants them to say, so they should be handled with care. On 2015, a lot of independent/third way voters here ended up voting for Macri since polls predicted his victory, therefore "he's going to win anyway, so might as well" (a terribly wrong reason to choose any candidate, but that's a different issue), which was one of many factors that secured him the margin needed to actually win.some pre-election polls are known to be fairly accurate, up to a few percent error, thus there may not be a need to even attempt hard fraud, at least in the absence of a tight race
in the USA, with their mandatory two-party system or elsewhere with 1-2-3 traditionally large parties, all it takes is to have sufficient access to influential persons within those parties - then it does not matter who wins, something along the lines of:
The second paragraph is partially what I meant with "easy to manipulate or at least influence" before, it's easier to sway or pressure a few thousand electors than millions of regular citizens.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
Bookmarks