**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

This is a fantastic example of showing how the media has changed perceptions. The Trump side has been incredibly peaceful compared to the Clinton side, yet people widely and wrongly believe that there is a greater threat of intimidation and violence from the Trump side.

What makes you think the media makes up my mind for me? I argued this based on what Trump said and based on the kind of people who support him (NRA types). In my view this combination creates the perfect recipe for voter intimidation. Not only that, I suspect it may be a deliberate tactic Trump is using.

It's also possible it's only a coincidence that he's so narcissistic he can't believe he will lose a fair fight and that his supporters happen to be pro-gun types.

It's also possible no voter intimidation will happen at all. But it seems a lot more likely now thanks to Trump.

[Poopadoop]

1 - In the context of what was said yes it 100% is a problem. I'm not sure on how legitimate it is that people would be at polling stations applying unwanted pressure but just because something may have a good, such as awareness on fraudulent elections, doesn't mean the payoff is worth it. So the worst possible way still having positive results isn't true.

Good point.

2 - Where is this evidence?

The only evidence I've seen is of states like N. Carolina (I think Ohio is another one) trying to diminish voter rights in a way that would clearly favour Trump by making it harder for blacks to vote. Yet he doesn't seem concerned with raising awareness of this kind of rigging but more of the Guiliani grand conspiracy unsupported by evidence kind.

3 - If there is fraud going on I highly doubt this is actually anywhere close to optimal for exposing and fixing the issue.

...or that his motives were ever so pure in the first place.

[Poopadoop]

On the topic of the lyin' polls, some of the big ones of late have weighted for D +34 just to give Clinton a 5 point lead in a red state or have weighted for D +11 nationally, which is +4 greater than Obama had in 2008. If this was House of Cards, people would call it contrived bad writing.

Give us one example of a big poll that has done this and the evidence it has done this please.

[Poopadoop]

Never mind, found it.

The argument that the pollsters are 'weighting' their polls to be D + this or D + that in a cynical attempt to overstate Clinton's chances is based on a poor understanding of how polls are done. Whereas polls samples may be non-representative, the actual weighting goes on after the samples are collected so that the end result is a proportionate weighting of voters by party

Here's an example of where this bias argument is made based on a flawed understanding of what the pollster was actually doing:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ing-narrative/

The argument that the poll is 'biased' because more of their (randomly-chosen) sample identified themselves as Democrats than would be expected based on voter registration is flawed for two reasons:

1. Samples are chosen at random from lists of registered voters. If the pollsters consider party membership in sampling, it's only so they can try to choose representative numbers from each party.

2. Sampling inequalities due to random sampling are going to happen in every poll to a greater or lesser degree, and pollsters adjust for these numbers to end up with weightings that reflect voter registration by party.

In this case, the result they got after appropriate weightings was 39% to 34% in favor of Clinton. A result based only on the numbers obtained in the poll with no weightings would have been Clinton 51% to 26% Trump. Obviously they did the weightings.


Incidentally, what's telling about this poll is that Trump's lead among republicans (60% Trump to 15% Clinton for a 45% lead) is much smaller than Clinton's lead among democrats (71% Clinton to 12% Trump for a 59% lead). Also Clinton is beating Trump for the 'other' vote 36% to 28%.

What's also interesting is how many of the people in this random sample identify themselves now as democrats, more than would be expected by sampling error alone. It suggests a lot of people are switching allegiance based on recent events. Of course it can also be argued to mean the independent pollster is 'rigging' their poll by asking more democrats even though the weighting they use corrects for that (meaning that trying to rig your poll by baising your sample, and then correcting for your sample bias, would obviously be a pretty silly thing to do).

[Poopadoop]

An interesting question to ask might be, Why are a disproportionate number of poll respondents identifying themselves as Democrats now? Have they actually switched allegiance or are they just embarrassed to admit their affiliation with Trump?

[Poopadoop]

The USC Dornsife/LA Times poll is one that Trump and his supporters like because it consistently gives him several % more support than the mean of other polls. The problem with this poll is that it uses an untested, unproven methodology. The NY Times article on how they've subdivided their weighting procedure so much than one person can be weighted as if they were 30 people (who would all vote the same way according to this procedure mind you) is a good argument for why this poll should not be taken seriously.

It's a good thing actually that this MSM poll favors Trump. If it had happened that the increased variance inherent in this poll had overestimated Clinton's support by the same degree, the Trump camp would be using it as more 'evidence' of poll rigging.

[wufwugy]

Where is this evidence?

I don't bookmark this stuff because I don't much care for it, but quite a lot has come out over the last few months. Research the Sanders primary stuff. The numbers suggest fraud and that he would have won had machines not been used. Apparently there are bombshells in the recent O'Keefe videos of staffers admitting to and describing their fraud. There are many other instances in history of local elections that I've heard about that point towards a serious need for investigation. Everybody and their cousins claimed Gore had his shit stolen in 2000, yet now it's mum's the word. I have seen dozens of different sources claim they found events of dead people being added to rolls (not just not dropped), of people voting multiple times, of non-citizens voting, and of wrongfully destroyed registration and ballots. Most of these claims are probably false. But some are likely true.

I don't have much more on this because the topic is very depressing to me, so I push it out of my mind. The main thing I know about is a shitload of Bernie supporters are voting Trump because the evidence of Clinton and the DNC rigging the machines is too compelling.

[wufwugy]

Media confirmed rigged again

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-states-230176

Interested to know your source too.

Apparently the NC numbers can be found here. I haven't perused. http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/


The explanation about the women, I really don't know how accurate it is, is that there has been a major push for Dem early voting and that they're just moving their later voting forward. This doesn't appear for just women but blacks too. The thing is that the other numbers do not support the idea that it's a turnout bump. It is also possible that Trump voters are more inclined to do it on the day of an in person, because that's sorta how it works when people are really excited.

The articles own points suggest this is about redistribution of votes, by way of the Rosie point. That's not about new voters voting, but voters who already don't like Trump deciding they have all the information they need earlier.

[wufwugy]

An interesting question to ask might be, Why are a disproportionate number of poll respondents identifying themselves as Democrats now? Have they actually switched allegiance or are they just embarrassed to admit their affiliation with Trump?

Most Republicans hate Republicans. Many have become Independents. Trump is a Republican in name only. There is a huge push among people voting for Trump to not vote Republican.

It can be the sampling bias just like before. Republicans are disgusted with their party. I mean, the Speaker of the House tried to fucking force Trump to resign just a couple weeks ago. Ryan's career is in jeopardy because of it.

[wufwugy]

In this case, the result they got after appropriate weightings was 39% to 34% in favor of Clinton. A result based only on the numbers obtained in the poll with no weightings would have been Clinton 51% to 26% Trump. Obviously they did the weightings.

This is why they need to release multiple renditions of the same data. This instance suggests the poll is deeply unreliable more than it suggests a 25 point slaughter in favor of Clinton. Wacky response results like the above are not rare. Weighting is an art, and its purpose is to best represent the population. The way this poll was weighted has a very big bias towards representing the sample.

[Poopadoop]

North Carolina numbers showing big boost in Independents, big decline in Democrats, and men initially leading women in turnout.

Signs of a blowout.

Apparently the NC numbers can be found here. I haven't perused. http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/

Does not compute.

I ask you where you got your figures from, you point to a source and say you haven't looked at it?

[wufwugy]

What makes you think the media makes up my mind for me? I argued this based on what Trump said and based on the kind of people who support him (NRA types).

I'm telling you, it's the media, man. "NRA types" are nothing like what the media has indoctrinated people to think they are.

I certainly don't like to accuse people of not thinking for themselves, but what I will say is that even I know that I don't think for myself as much as I'd like to think. The indoctrination we've gotten from the media and intelligentsia (intended and unintended) are so fundamental that they look like basic common sense. A great example of this is how most people thought Trump was being racist when he talked about Mexicans or Islam. Yeah, it's racist to talk about two things that aren't even a race. Some srs smrt braining we going on.

What I am suggesting is the idea that the idea that people can use their rational minds to evaluate Trump as dangerous is in fact using their irrational minds. Coincidentally, Adams recently blogged on this.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1521158...us-the-monster

[wufwugy]

Does not compute.

I ask you where you got your figures from, you point to a source and say you haven't looked at it?

I pulled it from Bill Mitchell, who said he gets his numbers from there. I figured you'd rather a possibly unbiased source instead of some guy on twitter with an agenda.

[Poopadoop]

This is why they need to release multiple renditions of the same data.

Don't know what you mean by this. There's only one set of data and they released it. Or am i missing something?

This instance suggests the poll is deeply unreliable more than it suggests a 25 point slaughter in favor of Clinton. Wacky response results like the above are not rare.

It didn't suggest that, it suggested a five point lead for Clinton.

Weighting is an art, and its purpose is to best represent the population.

It's not as complicated as some make it out to be. You take a sample, adjust for how many people fall into a particular category, and do the math.

The way this poll was weighted has a very big bias towards representing the sample.

The poll asked people what party they belonged to and who would they vote for. It's not the poll's fault more people said they were Democrats and less said Republicans than would be expected based on registration. Rather than assuming this was because people had suddenly switched parties (which seems unlikely) the poll corrected for the apparent bias by weighting responses and ended up with an estimate of 39-34 voting Clinton-Trump. Nothing wrong with that methodology.

[Poopadoop]

I'm telling you, it's the media, man. "NRA types" are nothing like what the media has indoctrinated people to think they are.

I just used NRA types as a shorthand for Trump supporters, but you're correct that is a biased representation of who they are.

So let's replace NRA types with bullies, authoritarians, redneck, KKK, racists, whatever you want. Add Clinton-haters, people who value democracy, conspiracy theorists, etc. etc. It doesn't matter how you brand the Trump supporters he's inciting, he's still inciting them to go to polling stations and 'keep an eye on things'.

The problem is it's an incitement that's open to interpretation. Some people might take it to be encouraging a much more aggressive involvement than you or I. There's some (likely small but still some) proportion of his supporters who I imagine are capable of showing up at voting booths and (purposely or not) having the effect of intimidating other voters. And he's the one telling them to go and check these places out. At best it's irresponsible behavior on his part.

[Poopadoop]

I pulled it from Bill Mitchell, who said he gets his numbers from there. I figured you'd rather a possibly unbiased source instead of some guy on twitter with an agenda.

Ya well, he clearly has his own way of interpreting things. Without going into detail, there's evidence in those numbers that could be taken in favor of either side.

[Poopadoop]

The issue one could reasonably take with the Arizona poll is why so many more people id'd themselves as Demos than Repubs, which doesn't reflect the known party affiliation. One could argue that Repubs were more likely to hang up and not take part than the Demos, and out of those who did, most or all of them would vote for Trump. We don't know if that would have changed the Repub numbers up in favor of Trump.

The NBC poll you alluded to above (D+11) also has the same issue with sampling, as well as the issue of being run by pro-Demo people. So ya, that poll should be treated with suspicion.

[wufwugy]

He ain't my first choice, but oh man would implementation of these be so incredible for the country.

http://vesselnews.io/gettysburg-addr...dministration/

[wufwugy]

The issue one could reasonably take with the Arizona poll is why so many more people id'd themselves as Demos than Repubs, which doesn't reflect the known party affiliation. One could argue that Repubs were more likely to hang up and not take part than the Demos, and out of those who did, most or all of them would vote for Trump. We don't know if that would have changed the Repub numbers up in favor of Trump.

The NBC poll you alluded to above (D+11) also has the same issue with sampling, as well as the issue of being run by pro-Demo people. So ya, that poll should be treated with suspicion.

I've seen several people claim that they've been hung up on after declaring they're Republican or voting Trump. Could easily be a hoax though. The polls can be wrong without also being unethical, so no need to include the unethical.

[wufwugy]

Don't know what you mean by this. There's only one set of data and they released it. Or am i missing something?



It didn't suggest that, it suggested a five point lead for Clinton.



It's not as complicated as some make it out to be. You take a sample, adjust for how many people fall into a particular category, and do the math.



The poll asked people what party they belonged to and who would they vote for. It's not the poll's fault more people said they were Democrats and less said Republicans than would be expected based on registration. Rather than assuming this was because people had suddenly switched parties (which seems unlikely) the poll corrected for the apparent bias by weighting responses and ended up with an estimate of 39-34 voting Clinton-Trump. Nothing wrong with that methodology.

And the weight they used got them a result that can be described only as ludicrous. Probably the best thing they could have done here is similar to what the LA pollsters are doing: apply heavier weighting of particular groups to get that D+34 down to a reasonable number. I don't know what the turnout will be, but in an R+5 state, it is absolutely not going to be anywhere close to D+34.

[wufwugy]

Even if the response error is so bad that they have to count every R female 5 times for every D female in order to get the final turnout to a more reasonable R+2 or whatever, it would still give them a far more accurate result than leaving it at D+34.

[Poopadoop]

He ain't my first choice, but oh man would implementation of these be so incredible for the country.

http://vesselnews.io/gettysburg-addr...dministration/

Still planning to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Lol.

[Poopadoop]

And the weight they used got them a result that can be described only as ludicrous. Probably the best thing they could have done here is similar to what the LA pollsters are doing: apply heavier weighting of particular groups to get that D+34 down to a reasonable number. I don't know what the turnout will be, but in an R+5 state, it is absolutely not going to be anywhere close to D+34.

The D+34 is in their sample, it's not their weight. A lot more Dems. answered their polls than Reps. They didn't try to assume that 34% more Dems. than Reps. would vote.

Their weight was based on voter registration by party - 36% Rep. 31% Dem. or whatever it is. So basically, yes, they counted each republican as having more weight than each dem. to arrive at their final estimate.

[wufwugy]

Still planning to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Lol.

Walls work.

Mexico ain't gonna write a check. But there are many other ways to make costs fall on Mexico instead of the United States relative to current in order for it be able to be described as Mexico paying for it.

[Poopadoop]

Walls work.

Mexico ain't gonna write a check. But there are many other ways to make costs fall on Mexico instead of the United States relative to current in order for it be able to be described as Mexico paying for it.

Guarantee you it's not going to happen. If Trump gets elected, he'll talk about building the wall for four years, won't do it, then claim the carpenter's union is rigged.

[wufwugy]

The D+34 is in their sample, it's not their weight. A lot more Dems. answered their polls than Reps. They didn't try to assume that 34% more Dems. than Reps. would vote.

Their weight was based on voter registration by party - 36% Rep. 31% Dem. or whatever it is. So basically, yes, they counted each republican as having more weight than each dem. to arrive at their final estimate.

I guess that makes me wrong. I thought it was the other way around. It makes more sense this way actually. Regardless, the unweighted data shows likely huge sampling error, which includes the R sample not being representative of R population.

[wufwugy]

Guarantee you it's not going to happen. If Trump gets elected, he'll talk about building the wall for four years, won't do it, then claim the carpenter's union is rigged.

Could be. He may have very few legislative victories. Regardless, what the president does unilaterally is off the charts important.

[Poopadoop]

But there are many other ways to make costs fall on Mexico instead of the United States relative to current in order for it be able to be described as Mexico paying for it.

Short of war and invasion or slapping huge tariffs on Mexico that will hurt America as well, there aren't really other ways of forcing them to pay for it. They've already said they won't.

You can't build a fence and make your neighbor pay for it. That's just stupid.

[wufwugy]

Short of war and invasion or slapping huge tariffs on Mexico that will hurt America as well, there aren't really other ways of forcing them to pay for it. They've already said they won't.

You can't build a fence and make your neighbor pay for it. That's just stupid.

I think the answer is far less satisfying than most expect. "Mexico paying for it" can be "achieved" merely by the US losing less money from costs on illegals that it offsets the cost of the wall over ten years or whatever. The rhetoric is standard Trump cleverness. He's not lying, but he's also letting people read into it what they want.

[wufwugy]

Another way "Mexico will pay for it" is by renegotiating trade deals that are better on paper for the US. Voila! Mexico paid for it.

[Poopadoop]

...which includes the R sample not being representative of R population.

That seems quite possible given their results are outside the typical range for polls in Arizona.

But that's quite a bit different from saying the poll was 'rigged'.

[Savy]

That seems quite possible given their results are outside the typical range for polls in Arizona.

But that's quite a bit different from saying the poll was 'rigged'.

It seems to me a lot of this is looking at things that are imperfect and assuming that they are meant to be 100% truth. Then saying it's rigged because it isn't 100% truth.

[Poopadoop]

It seems to me a lot of this is looking at things that are imperfect and assuming that they are meant to be 100% truth. Then saying it's rigged because it isn't 100% truth.

Add to that the idea that it's only rigged when it shows your guy is losing and you've pretty much summed up the creed of the conspiracy nut club.

[wufwugy]

Claimed to be the most accurate poll on average in the last three cycles. Nate Antimatter gives it A- rating.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...election-poll/

The internals suggest real bad for Clinton. Claims that it was originally weighted at R+2 but moved to D+8, still yielding Trump lead.

[OngBonga]

Add to that the idea that it's only rigged when it shows your guy is losing and you've pretty much summed up the creed of the conspiracy nut club.

This is incredibly naive, if you're being serious.

The establishment are already accusing Trump of being a sore loser who is threatening "democracy". America has democracy? News to me.

The way HE was asked the question "will you accept the result" was loaded to fuck. If he says yes, when they fix it they have him on tape saying he'd accept it. And if he says "we'll see", then they accuse him of being undemocratic.

I notice they didn't ask Hillary the same question.

It should be obvious to everybody, including Hillary supporters, that the corporate media are doing their absolute utmost to ensure Hillary will win.

They're doing their best to fix it. The only way Trump can win this is if his maj is huge enough so they can't fix it.

[wufwugy]

It's possibly they're digging the same grave the Brit media did, and that he's pulling the same tactic that Farage did. That is, getting the media to declare emphatically that the results must be honored. This has a boomerang effect in that if/when they lose, they can't challenge it.

[bigred]

Claimed to be the most accurate poll on average in the last three cycles. Nate Antimatter gives it A- rating.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...election-poll/

The internals suggest real bad for Clinton. Claims that it was originally weighted at R+2 but moved to D+8, still yielding Trump lead.

In my opinion, the breakdowns for women, educated, and youth are far too high for Trump. I've always followed the fivethirtyeight blog for election results but that one seems far too weight towards Hillary this time. One can only hope.

[bigred]

Walls work.

Mexico ain't gonna write a check. But there are many other ways to make costs fall on Mexico instead of the United States relative to current in order for it be able to be described as Mexico paying for it.

I think if you want to build a wall, you don't understand the foundation of this country. Maybe North Korea would be more suitable to these wall values?

I exaggerate but that's the mood I'm in. I watched the final debate and when interviewing undecided voters (aka moth breathers) one lady stated, "Trump will build that wall because there's at least 40 Mexicans swimming across the river every day into our country."

HOLY MOLY, NOT 40 MEXICANS!

I realize my anger will only alienate people I disagree with but our general sense of these OTHERS coming to get us and our jobs is a concept I've never understood and I want to punch a wall.

I think if we put our energy into empathy instead of fear, we may be "great again."

[bigred]

Meh, politics is just an echo chamber where we find the facts that support our beliefs and then display, myself included. I need to step away from this stuff.

[Poopadoop]

This is incredibly naive, if you're being serious.

The establishment are already accusing Trump of being a sore loser who is threatening "democracy". America has democracy? News to me.

Because that's how he looks. He starts losing in the polls and now he's suddenly starts spouting off about rigged this and rigged that. Have you heard how many things are supposedly in on the conspiracy? It's not just Hillary and the polls and the media and the women accusing him of sexual assault, it's corporate banks, the global power structure, etc..

The way HE was asked the question "will you accept the result" was loaded to fuck. If he says yes, when they fix it they have him on tape saying he'd accept it. And if he says "we'll see", then they accuse him of being undemocratic.

I notice they didn't ask Hillary the same question.

1. They asked HIM because HE'S the one who keeps saying it's rigged.
2. They don't ask Hillary because she doesn't say those things.

It should be obvious to everybody, including Hillary supporters, that the corporate media are doing their absolute utmost to ensure Hillary will win.

How so? By repeating things Trump says? Ya, that is pretty biased of them.

They're doing their best to fix it. The only way Trump can win this is if his maj is huge enough so they can't fix it.

I know right? They've even tried to undo the voter rights abuses in places like N. Carolina, where the state officials tried to limit the ability of black people to get to the polls. So unfair!

[CoccoBill]

The POTUS wields somewhat more power than most other western democracies. More extensive veto rights, executive orders, supreme court nominations etc. Still, the president's job basically boils down to two things: pushing policies and acting as the representative and public face for the country.

With Hillary, we pretty much know what those policies are. There's some fairly progressive ones, but mainly more of the same old, and most likely nothing new as long as the congress and the senate are R-majority. As a representative she'd be a mixed bag, her minor controversies and corruption charges have not gone unnoticed globally, but at the same time electing a liberal woman would not be bad for most foreign relations. She's a flawed candidate with a mixed bag of negatives and some positives.

With Donald, sweet bloody jesus. We have absolutely no idea what kind of policies he is going to push, apart from a wall and flip-flopping on pretty much every issue, with no clear plans regarding anything. Hillary may be a tad crooked, but this guy is the epitome of plutocracy, old money, corruption, hate mongering and self interests. He might be the most hated and feared person on the planet right now.

It blows my mind that there are legit concerns he might be voted in. They're both...shall we say less than ideal as candidates, but we're still comparing a decent person with poop in her hands to a bucket of horse manure. If the election is rigged, it's by the russians someone hacking the voting machines.

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events...tml/index.html

[OngBonga]

Because that's how he looks. He starts losing in the polls and now he's suddenly starts spouting off about rigged this and rigged that. Have you heard how many things are supposedly in on the conspiracy? It's not just Hillary and the polls and the media and the women accusing him of sexual assault, it's corporate banks, the global power structure, etc..

Yup. The corporate elite really want Clinton to win.

1. They asked HIM because HE'S the one who keeps saying it's rigged.
2. They don't ask Hillary because she doesn't say those things.

The way he was baited into answering that question, they might as well have just asked "are you going to kick up a fuss when we cheat?". I was very uncomfortable when this was being discussed during the debate. The whole system is clearly stacked against him.

How so? By repeating things Trump says? Ya, that is pretty biased of them.

Are you watching the same election as me? There is a relentless smear campaign against Trump, it's been in overdrive for months.

Find me main stream articles that are critical of Hillary. Then find me main stream articles that are not critical of Trump. Even the BBC is biased towards Hillary. You might find something if you look hard enough, the media do throw the occasional anti-Clinton article in to pretend they're not biased. But then they go an undo all that by reminding us that Putin is going to destroy the world.

If it's not obvious to you, then I really don't know what to say.

...but we're still comparing a decent person with poop in her hands to a bucket of horse manure.

Hillary is not "a decent person". Far from it. This would've made me laugh if I wasn't so concerned about the impact she'll have on global politics.

I'm not going to argue against the charge that Trump is "horse manure". This is why I mock the American idea of "democracy". America is left with two bad choices. The candidate that I would call "a decent person", Bernie Sanders, was squeezed out. Is this what America wants?

I realise that I come across as pro-Trump. Believe me I'm not. I'm more anti-Clinton than I am anti-Trump. That really does give you an idea of how much of a mess America is in for the next presidential term.

[Poopadoop]

Yup. The corporate elite really want Clinton to win.

According to the conspiracy theorists. And maybe they do, maybe they don't. Trump is promising to lower the taxes of the most wealthy, Clinton is promising to raise them. Seems like Trump should be their man by that standard.

And what if they do favor Clinton? Does this mean they're going to rig the election? How?

The way he was baited into answering that question, they might as well have just asked "are you going to kick up a fuss when we cheat?". I was very uncomfortable when this was being discussed during the debate. The whole system is clearly stacked against him.

Again, you ignore the reason the question was brought up in the first place. If Trump hadn't been ranting and raving about the election being 'rigged', no-one would have had reason to question him on it.

If you keep saying outrageous things and keep getting called out on it, you can't then claim it's because of bias. If you don't want to be called out, don't say things like that, and no-one will bother you.

There is a relentless smear campaign against Trump, it's been in overdrive for months.

Find me main stream articles that are critical of Hillary. Then find me main stream articles that are not critical of Trump. Even the BBC is biased towards Hillary.

Have you considered the possibility that the media is more interested in selling newspapers than in presenting a rational, even -handed consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates? Sex scandals and a guy saying a bunch of wacky shit are a lot more entertaining than a thorough perusing of Wikileaks material. If Hillary started claiming the election was rigged and saying a bunch of other stuff that sounds crazy, she'd be getting a lot more coverage.

If you think the MSM is there to serve us up an unbiased view of the world then you're mistaken. Sure they're biased. Going from that to the idea that they're in Clinton's pocket is a bit of a stretch though. The source of most of the supposed bias against Trump is as I said before, Trump himself doing crazy shit that gets repeated on the air.

You might find something if you look hard enough, the media do throw the occasional anti-Clinton article in to pretend they're not biased. But then they go an undo all that by reminding us that Putin is going to destroy the world.

If it's not obvious to you, then I really don't know what to say.

I don't dispute the basic facts of what you say, I dispute your interpretation of them.

[Poopadoop]

It's possibly they're digging the same grave the Brit media did, and that he's pulling the same tactic that Farage did. That is, getting the media to declare emphatically that the results must be honored. This has a boomerang effect in that if/when they lose, they can't challenge it.

That'd be a great tactic if anyone on Hillary's side was claiming the fix was in. But they're not.

If the election is close, either side will dispute it just like in 2000. If it's a blowout, I suspect only Trump will find a reason to argue it's rigged.

[OngBonga]

According to the conspiracy theorists. And maybe they do, maybe they don't. Trump is promising to lower the taxes of the most wealthy, Clinton is promising to raise them. Seems like Trump should be their man by that standard.

You'd think, wouldn't you? What does that actually tell you? It tells me Clinton isn't being honest.

And what if they do favor Clinton? Does this mean they're going to rig the election? How?

Well the media try to rig it by being biased, by smearing one candidate and not the other, by asking awkward questions to one and not the other, by relentlessly parrotting the lies that one candidate is spouting but not the other.

Whether the media alone can succeed, idk. I don't know how to fix elections, but I am confident that have done it before. Gore probably won.

Again, you ignore the reason the question was brought up in the first place. If Trump hadn't been ranting and raving about the election being 'rigged', no-one would have had reason to question him on it.

"ranting and raving"

What you're doing here is using the kind of rhetoric that the media uses to discredit him. Is Hillary ranting and raving when she talks about Russia? Yes, but will you use that term?

Hillary has been accusing Putin of trying to influence the election (and is lying, of course). So she's implied that if Trump wins, it's because of Russia. So ask her if she's going to accept it, or attempt to use Russia as a means to challenge the outcome.

Have you considered the possibility that the media is more interested in selling newspapers...

This comes back to my original point about naivity.

[Poopadoop]

Claimed to be the most accurate poll on average in the last three cycles. Nate Antimatter gives it A- rating.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...election-poll/

According to their data, it's one of five polls that hasn't had a result fall outside their margin of error in the last three elections. At least two of the other four were conducted by (gasp) the MSM. A third was conducted by Democracy Corps.

Can't find polls from on Pew or Democracy Corps recently, but NBC has Clinton +6 and ABC has Clinton +4 to IBD/TIPP's Trump +2. Kinda weird two of the three most reputable polls disagree by that much.

[Poopadoop]

You'd think, wouldn't you? What does that actually tell you? It tells me Clinton isn't being honest.

Because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory, therefore she must be lying. Ok.

Whether the media alone can succeed, idk. I don't know how to fix elections, but I am confident that have done it before. Gore probably won.

Pretty sure it was the Supreme Court who chose the winner in 2000, not the media.

"ranting and raving"

Well, that's how he looks to me. If you find him calm and reasonable, I guess that's a difference between us.

What you're doing here is using the kind of rhetoric that the media uses to discredit him. Is Hillary ranting and raving when she talks about Russia? Yes, but will you use that term?

Again, you can interpret their respective demeanours any way you like. But I think most people would agree with me that Trump is the more ranty and ravey one of the two.

Hillary has been accusing Putin of trying to influence the election (and is lying, of course).

You know for a fact she's lying about Russia trying to influence the election? How so?

So she's implied that if Trump wins, it's because of Russia. So ask her if she's going to accept it, or attempt to use Russia as a means to challenge the outcome.

But she hasn't said Russia is deliberately rigging the election, only that they're trying to influence it because they prefer Trump (which they probably do). So there's no reason to think she would use that as any grounds for appeal. And if you asked her, I'm sure she would say 'yes I'll accept the outcome of the election.' In fact, pretty sure she's said as much in the past.

This comes back to my original point about naivity.

If not being paranoid and seeing conspiracies everywhere makes me naive, so be it.

[Poopadoop]

Ong, what do you actually believe the media's reason for existing is? I'm curious to know.

[OngBonga]

Because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory, therefore she must be lying. Ok.

She's being funded by Soros. Do you think he'd be throwing his money at her if he'd be worse off if she wins? Naivity.

Pretty sure it was the Supreme Court who chose the winner in 2000, not the media.

Sorry I didn't intend to imply that the media won Bush the election, "they" as in the establishment.

Well, that's how he looks to me. If you find him calm and reasonable, I guess that's a difference between us.

They're both ranty. I'm pointing out that you use language such as this for Trump, but not Clinton, even though both are guilty of it.

Again, you can interpret their respective demeanours any way you like. But I think most people would agree with me that Trump is the more ranty and ravey one of the two.

Rhetoric is what's important, not tone. Yes Trump is more "ranty" in the sense that he isn't as accomplished a public speaker as Clinton is. But That only serves to deomnstrate that Clinton is more manipulative. Trump is brute force. They're both ranty, in different ways. Neither is particularly honest, and both are more interested in insulting the other than explaining how they will put into place their policies etc.

You know for a fact she's lying about Russia trying to influence the election? How so?

Do I know for a fact? No. How could I be in possession of such facts? I do however have strong reason to believe it. I regularly read the blog of a British whistleblower, he was sacked for trying to expose UK complicity in Uzbekistani torture chambers. He claims to be 100% certain that it wasn't Russia. He would be in a position to know. He is friends with Assange, someone who actually knows the source of the leaks. So the question for me is... do I trsut the word of a man I've never met before? Well, not 100%, but I'd say he's the person on the internet I trust the most, based on the manner in which he left government. At the very least, I believe that he believes it.

And he's certainly not the only one who claims it's bollocks.

The whole "blame Russia" thing is so transparent. Clinton breaks the law in her handling of emails, and instead of taking responsibility, blames a foreign adversary. Classic smokescreen. How are you falling for it?

Ong, what do you actually believe the media's reason for existing is? I'm curious to know.

Propaganda, obviously. Not all media, of course. But mass media, corporate media.

If not being paranoid and seeing conspiracies everywhere makes me naive, so be it.

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean I'm not after you.
~Kurt Cobain

[OngBonga]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...ia-corruption/

Bill Binney is like myself a former recipient of the Sam Adams Award – the World’s foremost whistleblowing award. Bill was the senior NSA Director who actually oversaw the design of their current mass surveillance software, and Bill has been telling anybody who will listen exactly what I have been telling – that this material was not hacked from Russia. Bill believes – and nobody has better contacts or understanding of capability than Bill – that the material was leaked from within the US intelligence services.

[OngBonga]

...

There is no doubt whatsoever that I have direct access to the correct information.

Yet not one single mainstream media journalist has attempted to contact me.

Why do you think that might be?

[Poopadoop]

She's being funded by Soros. Do you think he'd be throwing his money at her if he'd be worse off if she wins? Naivity.

I never said some or even all of the corporations might favor her. My question was how does this make the election rigged? By funding one party they're rigging the election? It's not like funding a party is something new or illegal in politics.

They're both ranty. I'm pointing out that you use language such as this for Trump, but not Clinton, even though both are guilty of it.

It's a matter of opinion, not fact, who is the more ranty. And it doesn't really matter in the end. So let's not debate it.

The whole "blame Russia" thing is so transparent. Clinton breaks the law in her handling of emails, and instead of taking responsibility, blames a foreign adversary. Classic smokescreen. How are you falling for it?

Could be. If she's got 17 intelligence agencies to all lie for her then kudos to her I guess. Wouldn't put it past them.

Propaganda, obviously. Not all media, of course. But mass media, corporate media.

I don't dispute the MSM is biased, I dispute that it's because they're all in cahoots with the democrats as part of some vast conspiracy. What seems more likely to me is that they're owned and run by people who prefer the democrats. If that makes it a conspiracy, then I guess that's what it is.

Also, if you don't like their angle, don't watch them. Pretty easy way to shield yourself from the enemy propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

...

So rather than naively think that the notion of a mass conspiracy is overblown, you prefer to naively trust that the conspiracy people are telling the truth.

Fact is, we'll never know what really goes on behind the scenes. Of course people lie and distort things to cover their asses. And of course they lie and distort things to smear their opponents. That's politics. It's not as if the Trump people aren't playing the same game.

[OngBonga]

I never said some or even all of the corporations might favor her. My question was how does this make the election rigged? By funding one party they're rigging the election? It's not like funding a party is something new in politics.

I'm not arguing that the funding is rigging the election. You're jumping to conclusions here. Reread what I said. I'm arguing that the funding demonstrates that the mega-wealthy won't be worse off as a result of her tax policy. If Soros was likely to pay more tax under Clinton than Trump, he'd probably be supporting Trump instead.

You were the one who brought up tax, not me.

Could be. If she's got 17 intelligence agencies to all lie for her then kudos to her I guess. Wouldn't put it past them.

Have you read the statement?

. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

That is like me saying that me and my fifteen mates think that you nicked my weed because someone told me you've nicked weed from someone's house before.

It's irrelevant that my fifteen mates all think you're a bit of a tosser, we're all impartial here.

(I don't think you're a tosser, I'm merely making a point!)

That statement is weak as fuck, it doesn't actually accuse them directly.

"We believe..."

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, otherwise the statement would be MUCH STRONGER.

Also, if you don't like their angle, don't watch them. Pretty easy way to shield yourself from the enemy propaganda.

You realise this is like saying "don't look at adverts"?

[Poopadoop]

Looks like Oxford U. is in on the conspiracy too now.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/tech...llary-clinton/

[OngBonga]

So rather than naively think that the notion of a mass conspiracy is overblown, you prefer to naively trust that the conspiracy people are telling the truth.

Fact is, we'll never know what really goes on behind the scenes. Of course people lie and distort things to cover their asses. And of course they lie and distort things to smear their opponents. That's politics. It's not as if the Trump people aren't playing the same game.

I don't think it's naive to trust the sincerity of a man who blew his career in politics to expose the UK government for using evidence from torture. It's not like I'm talking about David Icke here. This is a very well respected man, not a conspiracy nutjob. fwiw, he doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not arguing that the funding is rigging the election. You're jumping to conclusions here. Reread what I said. I'm arguing that the funding demonstrates that the mega-wealthy won't be worse off as a result of her tax policy. If Soros was likely to pay more tax under Clinton than Trump, he'd probably be supporting Trump instead.

You were the one who brought up tax, not me.

Sorry, I thought you were of the opinion that big business was part of the conspiracy to rig the election.

Have you read the statement?

Not really interested enough to go that deep into it. I already conceded they could be lying. What more do you want?

You realise this is like saying "don't look at adverts"?

No, it's like me saying "don't watch channel 6 news." How is that difficult?

[OngBonga]

Looks like Oxford U. is in on the conspiracy too now.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/tech...llary-clinton/

Jesus, this is nothing new.

You know, if it's easy enough to spot a bot, then if I were Clinton, I'd get thos bots to tweet pro-Trump stuff, then use it against him.

They're playing chess here, not checkers.

[OngBonga]

Sorry, I thought you were of the opinion that big business was part of the conspiracy to rig the election.

Well they're part of it, but the power comes from the media and the establishment. The business merely funds and influences the policy makers.

Not really interested enough to go that deep into it. I already conceded they could be lying. What more do you want?

I quoted the gist of it FYI.

No, it's like me saying "don't watch channel 6 news." How is that difficult?

lol

Yes, "the media" is channel six news.

No, it's like me saying "don't watch 99% of news" How is that difficult?

FYP

[Poopadoop]

I don't think it's naive to trust the sincerity of a man who blew his career in politics to expose the UK government for using evidence from torture.

So because he's a whistleblower everything he says becomes the truth?

I'm not saying he's lying. I just wonder how he knows what he claims to know.

[Poopadoop]

Well they're part of it, but the power comes from the media and the establishment. The business merely funds and influences the policy makers.

Who is the 'establishment'? It's such a vague term.

Ok let's assume the media is rigged. They've always been rigged for the democrats (according to some people, not necessarily you) and the democrats have only won about half the elections. Doesn't seem like they have much power if that's their track record.

[OngBonga]

So because he's a whistleblower everything he says becomes the truth?

I'm not saying he's lying. I just wonder how he knows what he claims to know.

I said sincerity, not truth.

There is a big, big difference.

[OngBonga]

Who is the 'establishment'? It's such a vague term.

Ok let's assume the media is rigged. They've always been rigged for the democrats (according to some people, not necessarily you) and the democrats have only won about half the elections. Doesn't seem like they have much power if that's their track record.

Power is not static. It's like a tide.

[Poopadoop]

You know, if it's easy enough to spot a bot, then if I were Clinton, I'd get thos bots to tweet pro-Trump stuff, then use it against him.

They're playing chess here, not checkers.

Right, because the average twitter user is sophisticated enough to recognize the bots and not be influenced by their message, while at the same time using the existence of these bots (which they may or may not learn about) as a reason to support the opposite candidate.

Get real.

[OngBonga]

Who is the 'establishment'? It's such a vague term.

Those in control. Of course it's a vague term, these people are not exactly poking their heads up for me to see them.

[Poopadoop]

I said sincerity, not truth.

There is a big, big difference.

Well when you quote someone, you're not doing it normally to show you trust their sincerity, or are you?

Most people quote someone because they agree with what that person is saying.

[Poopadoop]

Those in control. Of course it's a vague term, these people are not exactly poking their heads up for me to see them.

Well you must have some idea who those people are if you're accusing them of fixing an election.

And please tell me you're not talking about the illuminati or stone masons or some other dark invisible force here.

[OngBonga]

Well when you quote someone, you're not doing it normally to show you trust their sincerity, or are you?

Most people quote someone because they agree with what that person is saying.

Shows how well you know me. Sincerity is much more important to me than truth. Not everyone knows the truth.

He claims to be 100% sure it wasn't Russian hacking. It is therefore a question of his sincerity, or his judgement. I don't have doubts in the former, but I guess he could be being played by Assange, who I don't have nearly as much trust in.

[OngBonga]

Well you must have some idea who those people are if you're accusing them of fixing an election.

And please tell me you're not talking about the illuminati or stone masons or some other dark invisible force here.

No I have absolutely no idea. Maybe Rothschild, and the banking dynasties. Maybe the likes of Soros. How the fuck am I supposed to know.

I am certain though that there is a global conspiracy. How it works is anyone's guess, because they do a very good job of protecting themselves.

[Poopadoop]

Right, because the average twitter user is sophisticated enough to recognize the bots and not be influenced by their message, while at the same time using the existence of these bots (which they may or may not learn about) as a reason to support the opposite candidate.

Get real.

In other words, rather than consider the idea that Trump is up to something dirty, you'd prefer to turn it into Clinton doing something dirty to make Trump look like he's doing something dirty.

I'll give you points for creativity here, nothing more.

[OngBonga]

I'll give you points for creativity here, nothing more.

Thanks.

It makes absolutely no difference how many tweets are from bots, unless it can be deomnstrated that the source is the candidate him/herself.

[Poopadoop]

Power is not static. It's like a tide.

The MSM in the US has been pro-democrat for as long as I can remember and I'm 48. So why do they only win half the time?

[Poopadoop]

It makes absolutely no difference how many tweets are from bots, unless it can be deomnstrated that the source is the candidate him/herself.

Exactly, and that's what so clever about the conspiracy surrounding Trump. They're so good at keeping a degree of separation between the dirty tricks and their candidate. It's like they're playing some kind of super conductor quantum cyclone hoover chess.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe Rothschild, and the banking dynasties. Maybe the likes of Soros.

You're right. It's naive to doubt the existence of something that's so powerful it can hide it's very existence. I have the same feelings about people who don't believe in leprechauns and the Loch Ness Monster.

[Poopadoop]

In fact, if you're Trump, what better way to hide your involvement in a mass conspiracy to get yourself elected than to claim to be the victim of the opposite conspiracy. No-one ever suspects the thief who shouts 'stop thief!'

Fuck these conspirators are smart.