Clown Car II: Revenge of the Clowns

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I bet it's brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre."

—
Kellyanne Conway, referring to an event that did not occur
 
Indeed, by now at least Trump hasn't started any war. Unlike W's dad, Bill Clinton in Serbia, W and his massive world-ruining wars, Obama and Libya (and fueling war in Syria). Supposedly Trump was also elected on the pledge not to start wars, no? Important also due to the fact that Hillary had no such premise, let alone a history of violence :)
 
Kyriakos said:
Indeed, by now at least Trump hasn't started any war. Unlike W's dad, Bill Clinton in Serbia, W and his massive world-ruining wars, Obama and Libya (and fueling war in Syria). Supposedly Trump was also elected on the pledge not to start wars, no? Important also due to the fact that Hillary had no such premise, let alone a history of violence :)
Click to expand...
Well if we're counting "fueling" wars, as in encouraging/facilitating them... I'll give Trump some credit for Putin/Russia escalating in Ukraine.
 
Kyriakos said:
^Just saying that currently it isn't logical to categorize him as a warmonger, given the warmongering previous presidents :D
Click to expand...

He has sent a guy who is on record advocating for not just a war but a "brutal, bloody world war" to the national security council. I'd say that fits into "currently a warmonger."
 
"[Celebrity Apprentice is] a total disaster...I want to pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings." -- President Trump, at the National Prayer Breakfast

"Hey Donald, I have a great idea. Why don't we switch jobs? You take over TV, because you're such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job. And then people can finally sleep comfortably again. Hm?" -- Schwarzenegger in response
 
Bootstoots said:
with no evidence that they voted,
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say there's no evidence. I mean, some districts in Detroit did end up having more ballots than there were registered voters, which seems to suggest something fishy was going on.

Of course that doesn't point specifically to the dead voting, but it does raise suspicion about voter fraud taking place in our elections. Maybe we should have international observers for our elections and let UN appointed officials do all the ballot counting.
 
Commodore said:
I wouldn't say there's no evidence. I mean, some districts in Detroit did end up having more ballots than there were registered voters, which seems to suggest something fishy was going on.

Of course that doesn't point specifically to the dead voting, but it does raise suspicion about voter fraud taking place in our elections. Maybe we should have international observers for our elections and let UN appointed officials do all the ballot counting.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about that. If you read the story in the Detroit Newspaper it talks about the state audit and quotes numbers like .16% of the vote...a few hundred out of a few hundred thousand in one precinct and similar discrepancies in a lot of others, and how the old and decrepit voting machines experienced widespread failures that complicated the process. If you read about the audit on right wing blogosphere "news sites" like the Daily (name) Caller or News(fake)Maxx there's "widespread fraud" with criminal intent and "hundreds of thousands of votes called into question."

Now, in typical fake news fashion they are "stating facts." When there is a .16% discrepancy of a couple hundred votes the entire precinct count, several hundred thousand votes, are "called into question." But the "huge fraud" is more accurately described as relatively minor human error that resulted primarily from the Michigan state government (Republicans) not wanting to provide improvements to voting machines in "enemy" territory.

By the way, do you have a source for the "more ballots than registered voters" claim? I suspect that the sentence from the state audit "there were more ballots than recorded voters" was "interpreted" by some overzealous "journalists" who threw in the word registered because it made a better story.
 
Detroit overall had a substantially lower turnout than in 2012, and there's no evidence for anything systemic. I'm not surprised there would be a few hiccups - mostly not fraud but rather human error (eligible voters voting in the wrong precinct, for instance) and outdated machines, totaling a few hundred votes in total.

The grand total of vote fraud in the election is obviously impossible to know for sure but probably on the order of a few thousand votes at most nationwide, consisting of sporadic cases of noncitizens voting (sometimes not knowing they were ineligible) and whatnot. The vast majority would never attempt that, of course, since a single measly vote isn't worth deportation, but it's not totally unreasonable that it happened sporadically. We can be fairly sure there's nothing systematic going on because most forms of systematic fraud leave obvious statistical traces, and it is virtually certain that it did not occur on anything like the scale needed to actually affect any important race.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
By the way, do you have a source for the "more ballots than registered voters" claim? I suspect that the sentence from the state audit "there were more ballots than recorded voters" was "interpreted" by some overzealous "journalists" who threw in the word registered because it made a better story
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant. Just used the wrong word. It was an honest mistake.
 
Commodore said:
Yeah, that's what I meant. Just used the wrong word. It was an honest mistake.
Click to expand...

By you I believe it was an honest mistake...but that is the going currency in the Breitbart world.

Having more votes than recorded voters is actually pretty typical.

You go in to vote. The volunteer at the polling place is someone you know. Instead of marking you off before they hand you your ballot like they are supposed to they don't want to make you wait so they just hand it over intending to mark you after. There's a little chitchat, and they are already out of the established routine and they don't get to it. It's harmless.

And it typically shows up as a tiny fraction or the cast ballots.

In Detroit there were some precincts that ran as high as 0.16% error. Over one and a half votes per thousand, which is certainly higher than normal. However they had a lot more chaos than normal to contend with due to machines breaking down, so it isn't that surprising...but for Dingbat Don and Breitbart it is fodder for their narrative that something just has to be done about the massive vote fraud. Guaranteed that whatever that something is it will suppress the vote and tilt elections in their favor, probably sufficiently to effectively end the democratic process in this country, if they are allowed to get away with it.
 
and of course ALL the votes in question must have been cast against Trump there is no chance that some of the votes actually favoured him
 
Old Hippy said:
and of course ALL the votes in question must have been cast against Trump there is no chance that some of the votes actually favoured him
Click to expand...

Well, in those precincts the odds are that any vote cast was probably for Clinton. It's also been demonstrated that the mechanism I described, with the chatty friend disrupting the routine, is one of the most common sources of error. That makes it even more likely that any vote cast by an unrecorded voter was cast for Clinton, since in those precincts it is highly unlikely that a Trump voter would have any friends to chat with.
 
Old Hippy said:
and of course ALL the votes in question must have been cast against Trump there is no chance that some of the votes actually favoured him
Click to expand...

In his interview with David Muir he addressed himself to this matter and explicitly said as much:

We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time -- and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states -- we have a lot to look into.
Click to expand...

What I found interesting about this quote was the brief appearance of the subjunctive: "They would all be for the other side."

I think there are a number of things that drive his word choice here, but I'm fascinated by how it teeters on the verge of actually giving up the game. It comes close to acknowledging that the whole claim is a hypothetical rather than an assertion of fact: "In the implausible scenario I'm insisting that you regard as fact, all of the illegal votes would (further implausibly) have gone to the Democratic candidate."
 
"We're going to have a very, very strict ban."
-- Trump, 1/28, on executive order

"It's a 90-day ban."
-- Sean Spicer, 1/29

"This is a ban..."
Kellyanne Conway, 1/29

"First of all, it's not a travel ban."
-- Spicer, 1/31, annoyed at a reporter's question about "the ban"

"Everybody is arguing about whether or not it is a ban. Call it what you want..."
-- Trump tweet, 2/1
 
"I was a good student. I understand things. I comprehend very well, better than I think almost anybody."

—
Trump
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sommerswerd
Clown Car VII: Or "Gulliver's Travels 2: The Witch Hunt Continues"
29 30 31
Replies
615
Views
21K
Broken_Erika
Broken_Erika
Gori the Grey
Jon Stewart and the Ruination of American Comedy
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Joij21
Joij21
Birdjaguar
  • Locked
[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: War News Thread: Round 6
219 220 221
Replies
4K
Views
159K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
NinjaCow64
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
21 22 23
Replies
443
Views
12K
Lexicus
Lexicus
S
Stalker0's State of the Mod (V4.2.7)
Replies
12
Views
2K
Nightmare Dusk
Nightmare Dusk
Top Bottom