Isn't that for people who are already listed in the database though?
For example, where i live, the voting area is a public school. When I went in to vote last year for the weed legalization(lol) amongst a host of other issues to vote on, they already had my name on a laptop and on paper as an eligible voter. I just had to use those forms of ID as confirmation I was the guy on the list.
Last edited by Swish; 10/19/1609:48 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump could still win; it would probably require him to make up about 3-4% in addition to the polls being off by 3-4% (similar to Brexit.) The combination of the two is unlikely. All in all, if I had to make a prediction I'd say Clinton victory along the lines of 2012 Obama or in that vicinity.
I was more talking about the EC, not popular vote. States like Georgia, Utah, and Alaska may be in play for Clinton.
The damage Trump has done to the GOP is incredible. I don't see how the party makes it back from this.
I'll keep stating this- Romney got smashed in the EC during his 2012 run. Trump has too much ground to make up. He can win Iowa, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, keep all of his red states and still lose.
Also, I think the Brexit comparison has become lazy. The way Brexit was decided is different than how a presidential election is decided. Also, the people who voted for Brexit weren't even sure what the hell it was. I would like to think people know who Hillary and Trump are.
Also, I think the Brexit comparison has become lazy. The way Brexit was decided is different than how a presidential election is decided. Also, the people who voted for Brexit weren't even sure what the hell it was. I would like to think people know who Hillary and Trump are.
And don't forget, the people that voted for brexit immediately started crying that they screwed up.
Not to be a jerk, but it's really funny watching people get screwed over by their own hatred.
Thankfully, that won't be happening this election cycle.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I say it all the time and it's harsh. However, if people do things out of pure emotion like fear or anger without thinking, they deserve what they get. It's why Gingrich saying what he did was a perfect summary of his base.
I say it all the time and it's harsh. However, if people do things out of pure emotion like fear or anger without thinking, they deserve what they get. It's why Gingrich saying what he did was a perfect summary of his base.
And this is what the DNC got from doing the same.
Say what you want about the source. You can find it almost anywhere. Is just chose this one. The video is very, very telling. The language and exploitation of the homeless and mentally ill is telling....and they are seemingly offended by Trump. Give me a break!
This video sums up the DNC. Oh, I know, steel dragon knew nothing about this.....
If Dems have been rigging elections for the past 50 years, please explain Bush, Bush Jr, Reagan, and so on.
Come on Cjrae. If they've been doing this, then they need to be fired because they are doing a terrible job at it.
Last edited by Swish; 10/19/1610:12 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
A new round of battleground state polling released Monday by Quinnipiac University showed Hillary Clinton winning in Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, meanwhile, Clinton and Donald Trump were tied in the new poll.
Those four states are key for both candidates' White House hopes, as their electoral votes could tip the scales above the 270 needed to win. Quinnipiac said that its results showed independent likely voters shifted to Clinton, which helped build her leads.
"Secretary Clinton has held or increased her lead following the second debate," Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a release accompanying the poll results. "Obviously the allegations by a number of women about Donald Trump's behavior have taken a toll among some of those who had been in his column." Brown added that Clinton's leads in Florida and Pennsylvania are particularly good for her campaign, as "Trump probably can't win if he loses one of them, and he's toast if he loses both."
The full four-way results of the new poll: Colorado: Clinton tops Trump 45 - 37 percent, with 10 percent for Gary Johnson and 3 percent for Jill Stein. On September 22, Clinton had 44 percent to Trump's 42 percent.
Florida: Clinton edges Trump 48 - 44 percent, with 4 percent for Johnson and 1 percent for Stein. On October 3, Clinton topped Trump 46 - 41 percent.
Ohio: Trump and Clinton tied 45 - 45 percent, with 6 percent for Johnson and 1 percent for Stein. On October 3, Trump led Clinton 47 - 42 percent.
Pennsylvania: Clinton leads Trump 47 - 41 percent, with 6 percent for Johnson and 1 percent for Stein. On October 3, Clinton was up 45 - 41 percent.
___________
Clinton is taking states she doesn't even need. Did you guys know she's pushing in Utah because there is a chance she can take that too?
Even the polygamist cults have had enough of trumps shenanigans lol
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I love how trump and all his followers are crying about the election being rigged.
Been doing this a little more than a month before Election Day.
A true sign of a loser. Crying about being rigged only because he knows he's gonna get hammered in the election, and already making built in excuses.
It probabaly pains him that he's gonna lose to a woman, as well. The ego, I kinda feel bad for it.
Kinda.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I don't spin. Not agile enough for it. I see you still got agility though.
Must be those yoga classes.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Negative ghost rider, I'm a down hill runner like mike Alstott.
You on the other hand, got that twirl like you're competing for a ice skating medal. /salute.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Really glad the Supreme Court topic is gonna be addressed.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Question for the audience, since a Fox News guy will be asking questions are we allowed to criticize him and tell him how much of an awful job he's doing?
Question for the audience, since a Fox News guy will be asking questions are we allowed to criticize him and tell him how much of an awful job he's doing?
sure, but for some reason i don't see that happening.
remember, during the primary debates, Chris wallace had a whole damn power point presentation showing how Trump's plan was full of crap. Trump just stood up there and couldn't say anything.
Last edited by Swish; 10/19/1611:47 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The final debate is tomorrow night, again at 9:00pm EDT. I'm not really sure what to expect in this one.
The third debate means little to nothing. Most people have made up their minds. This election has been over since the first debate and the nail was in the coffin after the second debate.
The only question is how bad will Clinton beat Trump. Is it 2012 Obama or is it 1984 Reagan or somewhere in between? My guess is that it's somewhere in between.
83 and Sunny here yesterday so I took the motorcycle to the Dr. office and to the BMV. I went through 2 towns and two Villages. Number of Trump signs in peoples yards
Trump 63
Number of Clinton's signs in peoples yards
Clinton 0
It seems to me, driving through the areas around where I live, that every time there is a sign for one candidate, their neighbor has a sign for the other. I don't see any advantage in signs, one way or the other, in the Brownlee Woods/Struthers/Boardman/Poland area.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Haus, how in the hell do you not know what dank memes are?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Mark my words and I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong but Trump will win this election. Trump's supporters will show up and Hillary will have to lowest turnout in democratic history. Why do I think this?
Trumps supporters are driven by fear, hate, safety and money. Clinton's supporters are driven by... Fear of Trump? Wanting a woman president? Thinking she is a great candidate?
There is no real reason that voters, rather educated or not will be inspired to turn out in greater numbers for Clinton. This election has already gone so far off the beaten path that I just don't think the polls or pundits have a clue as to what is actually going to happen on election day.
I for one hope that it is rigged this time around and Trump loses, but in all honesty I think he wins handily.
83 and Sunny here yesterday so I took the motorcycle to the Dr. office and to the BMV. I went through 2 towns and two Villages. Number of Trump signs in peoples yards
Trump 63
Number of Clinton's signs in peoples yards
Clinton 0
With all due respect, this means very little as everywhere I drive all I see are Clinton signs. Before July most of those Clinton signs were Sanders signs. So, certainly up here....many of Bernie's supporters have moved to Clinton's camp.
Haus, how in the hell do you not know what dank memes are?
I must be getting old.
It was more about the context, I know what memes are but someone made mention of Curt Schilling's dank memes and it was just lost on me. I planned on searching around to see what that was all about but I lost interest and forgot about it. ahh well
Mark my words and I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong but Trump will win this election.
I for one hope that it is rigged this time around and Trump loses, but in all honesty I think he wins handily.
Disagree. Clinton wins and possibly big.
I too will eat crow if I am wrong (I was wrong on Brexit) but, if that happens forgive me if it takes a while for me to show my face in here. I may be making plans to move my family to Vancouver or back to the UK.
Dank can be used in a variety of ways, but for example, if I say I have some dank weed, that means it's that strong stuff.
Dank memes refer to super offensive memes.
And that's what CHS was referring too.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Dank can be used in a variety of ways, but for example, if I say I have some dank weed, that means it's that strong stuff.
Dank memes refer to super offensive memes.
And that's what CHS was referring too.
Yeah it makes sense in context.
Nobody I know talks like that. It's all good though, learn something new every day.
Nobody is suppose to talk like that in real life. It's just common internet lingo.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Here's an interesting take on how Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers view Donald Trump. Read it. Ponder it. I doubt it will change anybody's opinion on Trump per se but it may change somebody's opinion on Trump supporters.
Clem has mentioned to me a few times that it must be hard work to continue to defend and support Trump, and every time I respond that it does not feel like work, I write what I honestly feel is accurate, and I simply don't see the pink elephant (read below for clarification.)
If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?
Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.
Let’s try another one.
If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?
Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.
Now let’s add some participants and try another one.
If a crowd of people are pointing to a stain on the wall, and telling you it is talking to them, with a message from God, and you don’t see anything but a stain, who is hallucinating? Is it the majority who see the stain talking or the one person who does not?
Answer: The people who see the stain talking are experiencing a group hallucination, which is more common than you think.
In nearly every scenario you can imagine, the person experiencing an unlikely addition to their reality is the one hallucinating. If all observers see the same addition to their reality, it might be real. But if even one participant can’t see the phenomenon – no matter how many can – it is almost certainly not real.
Here I pause to remind new readers of this blog that I’m a trained hypnotist and a student of persuasion in all its forms. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to learn the tricks for discerning illusion from reality. And I’m here to tell you that if you are afraid that Donald Trump is a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament, you have been brainwashed by the best group of brainwashers in the business right now: Team Clinton. They have cognitive psychologists such as Godzilla advising them. Allegedly.
I remind you that intelligence is not a defense against persuasion. No matter how smart you are, good persuaders can still make you see a pink elephant in a room where there is none (figuratively speaking). And Clinton’s team of persuaders has caused half of the country to see Trump as a racist/sexist Hitler with a dangerous temperament. That’s a pink elephant.
As a public service (and I mean that literally) I have been trying to unhypnotize the country on this matter for the past year. I don’t do this because I prefer Trump’s policies or because I know who would do the best job as president. I do it because our system doesn’t work if you think there is a pink elephant in the room and there is not. That isn’t real choice. That is an illusion of choice.
Trump represents what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring real change to a government that is bloated and self-serving. Reasonable people can disagree on policies and priorities. But Trump is the bigger agent for change, if that’s what you think the country needs. I want voters to see that choice for what it is.
And it isn’t a pink elephant.
If you are wondering why a socially liberal and well-educated cartoonist such as myself is not afraid of Trump, it’s because I don’t see the pink elephant. To me, all anti-Trumpers are experiencing a shared illusion.
Pause here.
Before you scoff at mass, shared illusions as being unlikely, keep in mind that everyone with a different religion than yours is experiencing exactly that. Mass shared illusions are our most common experience.
Back to my point. As a trained persuader, I can see the “Trump is Hitler” illusion for what it is. Where you might see a mountain of credible evidence to support your illusion, I see nothing but confirmation bias on your part. I have detailed that confirmation bias in other posts.
Remember my rule from above. If you see something unlikely – such as a new Hitler rising in the midst of America – and I see nothing remotely like that – I’m almost certainly right and you’re almost certainly having the illusion. I say that because the person who sees the unlikely addition to reality is the one experiencing the illusion nearly every time. Trump as Hitler-in-America is an addition to reality that only some can see. It is a pink elephant. It is a classic hallucination.
I’m not trying to say I’m smarter than anyone else. I just don’t see the pink elephant. Nor do perhaps 40% of the country who prefer Trump as president. And when that many people don’t see a pink elephant in a room, you can be sure it isn’t there, no matter how many do see it.
If you are a Clinton supporter, you might think Trump supporters see the same pink elephant that you do, and you rationalize that by saying Trump supporters prefer the pink elephant because they want it to stomp all over minorities.
Some Trump supporters are racists. That’s a fact. Racists are in every group. Perhaps they see the pink elephant too. If so, they probably do want that elephant to stomp all over minorities. But in this case, the racists are sharing the same illusion as Clinton supporters, seeing the same pink elephant. The majority of Trump supporters – as far as I can tell – simply don’t see any pink elephant at all. They just want change.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
I don’t believe in ghosts.
I don’t believe in a traditional god.
I don’t believe in luck.
And I don’t see Donald Trump as dangerous.
In my elephant-free view of the world, Trump is a guy who uses provocative language (as New Yorkers do) while succeeding across several different fields. And he knows risk-management. You can see that in everything he does.
If you are an anti-Trumper, you might reject my point of view as manipulative or naive. I can’t change your mind with a blog post. But you can change your own mind. Just ask others if they see the addition to reality that you see. If others don’t see the pink elephant in the room, and you do, the elephant isn’t there.
Look for that pattern. Once you see it, you’re awake.
The pattern is clear: the only people with hallucinations are the people defending the guy as if he didn't say any of those things.
It wasn't created. It wasn't implied. It wasn't made up.
It came from Trumps OWN mouth.
Unless this blogger is implying that somehow, trump didn't say those things.
But then that's the point I guess: this writer is hallucinating, along with the rest of the trump supporters. I guess trump didn't say "grab her by the ....." either.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The final debate is tomorrow night, again at 9:00pm EDT. I'm not really sure what to expect in this one.
The third debate means little to nothing. Most people have made up their minds. This election has been over since the first debate and the nail was in the coffin after the second debate.
The only question is how bad will Clinton beat Trump. Is it 2012 Obama or is it 1984 Reagan or somewhere in between? My guess is that it's somewhere in between.
83 and Sunny here yesterday so I took the motorcycle to the Dr. office and to the BMV. I went through 2 towns and two Villages. Number of Trump signs in peoples yards
Well some of the voter fraud issues make me wonder after reading Wiki Leaks, just saying.
What kind of voter fraud are you worried about?
I had poll training last evening. Here are acceptable non - photo forms of ID:
Questionable in my opinion:
Utility bill Paycheck Firearm permit Bank statement Government check
Not so concerning in my opinion:
Voter ID card issued by elections office Non photo-ID issued by a US government agency ID issued by another Commonwealth Agency
You make the decision regarding voter fraud. Given the first set, very feasible.
Quote:
To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
