[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[DDastardly00]

We are literally witnessing democracy in action - US style democracy. Who wants it most? Cui bono?

But voter fraud doesn't exist and according to Obama, it must be true right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

But voter fraud doesn't exist and according to Obama, it must be true right?

I think you were trying to say "it doesn't exist, according to Obama". What he actually said was that you'd be more likely to be struck by lightning than for the person next to you to be committing voter fraud. Which is true.

Whut?!, I hear you say? A world outside clickbait headlines? Omgz!

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Kim is listed on a large portion of them (mostly recent ones)

Okay, "just about all" changes to "large portion" then, but alright. Well that depends on what your definition of "large portion" is.............if it's north of, let's say 30%, you're seeing what you want to see.

That's not mostly false, that is in fact both ways. He did not end his support for her, but Kim choosing to take Bernie's words in a different, literal context because he doesn't refer to changing votes or influencing votes, still does not change the fact he is indeed claiming that the outcome will be determined by select individuals & not the American public.

It's not out right being declared as "rigged", but it pushes the same message; the candidate is not being chosen fairly. And Bernie would know as the biggest victim of it this election.

So the article that Snopes is looking at is this one (odd that you don't link to it and omit that bit of context from your quote....), which says two things; Bernie has unendorsed Clinton, and he suggests the Presidential election is rigged.

So on the first point, I think we're in agreement that's clearly false. On the second point, yeah that depends on what the site means by rigged.........a cursory look at the site shows it's filled with conspiracy theory stories so if it was referring to rigged votes that wouldn't surprise me. But it could be referring to something more along Bernie's lines, true (although note that Bernie doesn't say that the system is already like that, rather it's moving towards it - and he doesn't say who is doing the moving).

So at best I'd say she's right and the article is indeed mostly false, and at worst she's off base with that second point And the article is hanging around half-false. Okay.............mindblowing, I guess...............

EDIT: Actually scratch that, looked at the article again, what's one of the tags for it? "election fraud".........yeah, Kim was probably on the money with this one.

To be fair at least you put forward something to suggest Snopes isn't good at fact checking unlike DDastardly, but if that really is the best example of a Snope writer's personal biases getting in the way of doing proper fact-checking, then that's a pretty good vote of confidence in them I'd say!

 

[DDastardly00]

I think you were trying to say "it doesn't exist, according to Obama". What he actually said was that you'd be more likely to be struck by lightning than for the person next to you to be committing voter fraud. Which is true.

Whut?!, I hear you say? A world outside clickbait headlines? Omgz!

Fair enough, you win that one.

Now on a completely different topic..... do you think George Soros is a dead ringer for Emperor Palpatine?

With a little makeup, some colored contact lenses, I think he could totally pull it off.

 

[Dotini]

But voter fraud doesn't exist and according to Obama, it must be true right?

True, or not true, I cannot say. As a culture, we are hypocrites. We say one thing and do another, disobeyance of the constitution being the perfect example. Little lies become bigger lies. They are often correctly justified as more beautiful, useful or necessary than the ugly truth. So, at the end of the day, I give up the search for truth and go in search of beer.

 

[DDastardly00]

True, or not true, I cannot say. As a culture, we are hypocrites. We say one thing and do another, disobeyance of the constitution being the perfect example. Little lies become bigger lies. They are often correctly justified as more beautiful, useful or necessary than the ugly truth. So, at the end of the day, I give up the search for truth and go in search of beer.

I don't blame you for that ,we do live in a land of great Microbreweries, and Oregon is not far either. Speaking of Oregon, I could go for a tasty mactarnahan amber right now.

 

[Dotini]

I don't blame you for that ,we do live in a land of great Microbreweries, and Oregon is not far either. Speaking of Oregon, I could go for a tasty mactarnahan amber right now.

Outstanding! I've just polished off a Total Domination IPA, brewed by Ninkasi out of Eugene. <---home of anarchists!

 

[huskeR32]

Now on a completely different topic..... do you think George Soros is a dead ringer for Emperor Palpatine?

Well, I didn't think that...

And stop talking about all your great micros up there in the PNW (you too @Dotini)! You're just reminding that precious little of it makes it to the plains (and my belly).

 

[DDastardly00]

Outstanding! I've just polished off a Total Domination IPA, brewed by Ninkasi out of Eugene. <---home of anarchists!

Home of Anarchists..... and great beer. I've had Total Domination before, great stuff. I also love the Bend, OR area too, a lot of great breweries around there. A lot of tech companies seem to be moving down to Bend, startups and whatnot. I have a friend that lives down there and loves it.

 

[BobK]

politics is an extension of warfare.

A minor point, but you got it backwards -- war is an extension of politics, or as von Clausewitz put it, "war is the continuation of politics by other means".

 

[DDastardly00]

Well, I didn't think that...

And stop talking about all your great micros up there in the PNW (you too @Dotini)! You're just reminding that precious little of it makes it to the plains (and my belly).

Best thing to do in that case is make it yourself, with a little practice you'd be amazed what you can do with a simple home starter kit. I have a cousin that is really into making his own craft brews. I tried his Brown Sugar Winter Ale last year (not sweet, just a hint) and it was fantastic, made me want to start doing it myself.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A minor point, but you got it backwards -- war is an extension of politics, or as von Clausewitz put it, "war is the continuation of politics by other means".

Waldman sees a paradox in the equation, interestingly (for me at least ).

 

[McLaren]

Okay, "just about all" changes to "large portion" then, but alright. Well that depends on what your definition of "large portion" is.............if it's north of, let's say 30%, you're seeing what you want to see.

Whilst you sit on that, keep up with the fact that bringing her up revolved around this.

Her questioning comes from her coincidental, heavy defense of Hillary articles.

So the article that Snopes is looking at is this one (odd that you don't link to it and omit that bit of context from your quote....), which says two things; Bernie has unendorsed Clinton, and he suggests the Presidential election is rigged.

Which is what I quoted. What that website says is irrelevant, the verdict Kim comes to is not mostly false.

Claim: Sen. Bernie Sanders said the election was "rigged" and "unendorsed" Hillary Clinton

Mostly False

WHAT'S TRUE: Bernie Sanders made a Facebook post in which he criticized a "political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected."

WHAT'S FALSE: Sanders did not rescind his endorsement of Hillary Clinton and has continued urging his supporters to vote for her.

The true part is speaking in the same vain as the word rigged; the election outcome will not be decided as it is intended to.

So on the first point, I think we're in agreement that's clearly false. On the second point, yeah that depends on what the site means by rigged.........a cursory look at the site shows it's filled with conspiracy theory stories so if it was referring to rigged votes that wouldn't surprise me. But it could be referring to something more along Bernie's lines, true (although note that Bernie doesn't say that the system is already like that, rather it's moving towards it - and he doesn't say who is doing the moving).

So at best I'd say she's right and the article is indeed mostly false, and at worst she's off base with that second point And the article is hanging around half-false. Okay.............mindblowing, I guess...............

She is not saying the article is false, she says the claim is mostly false. Notice how she does not include "Bernie said the election was 'rigged'" under the False category, only the part where Bernie ended his endorsement. The first part of the claim is sitting in the True category under Bernie's perception of how the election will be decided.

EDIT: Actually scratch that, looked at the article again, what's one of the tags for it? "election fraud".........yeah, Kim was probably on the money with this one.

Tags are nothing more than a way to help identify the article in the search.

To be fair at least you put forward something to suggest Snopes isn't good at fact checking unlike DDastardly, but if that really is the best example of a Snope writer's personal biases getting in the way of doing proper fact-checking, then that's a pretty good vote of confidence in them I'd say!

This isn't the only example, the article on Hillary getting a rapist freed of charges is another, also by Kim.

DDastardly remained correct in his original post anyway; Snopes is not the end-all, be-all. I have no problem with them in general, however, Kim's articles are ones that seem to always come up when the site is questioned about where it stands.

 

[killerjimbag]

It's really hard to take you seriously about calling him dumb for not knowing the name of a city in Syria that few people in the US knew (again, he was aware of the actual issue) when you don't get basic grammar correct. "Your" and "you're" (which you botched twice), or "where" and "we're".

I know that seems like an ad hominem attack, but to be perfectly honest, your post is actually pretty unintelligible. I'm not sure what the point you're (not your) making is. I don't really know what question you're asking. What I do know is that you're being absurdly critical over a non-issue.

Edit: Wow, tree'd by Duke.

You know how phones sometimes spellcheck.
Unfortunately their is no Canadian English,as opposed to American English.

 

[DDastardly00]

Which is all I was getting at, I don't think that Snopes is bad, it's just that I wouldn't hold them up as the Holy Grail of undisputed truth (like many people seem to do). The reality is there are better fact checking sources than Snopes (at least in the realm of politics) that are out there to use. I personally like Real Clear Politics, I find they are more accurate than most.

 

[Dotini]

The stench of Clinton corruption spraying out of Wikileaks is reaching monstrous, epic, proportions. "Drain the swamp!!" bellows Trump. It's even seeping into the front pages of the NY Times and WaPo. Perhaps the polls are narrowing.

 

[Dennisch]

I wonder what Hillary will do if she does have to watch the inauguration of President Trump. Will she flee the country? Go into hideout in the embassy of Ecuador?

 

[Dotini]

I wonder what Hillary will do if she does have to watch the inauguration of President Trump. Will she flee the country? Go into hideout in the embassy of Ecuador?

In the almost unimaginable event Trump is inaugurated, he may be just alpha enough to prosecute her for the fun of it, as otherwise he'd be too busy trying to govern. I charitably expect his family and aides will talk him down and Hillary won't need to move to Europe.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You know how phones sometimes spellcheck.
Unfortunately their is no Canadian English,as opposed to American English.

I love it, masterful

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think you were trying to say "it doesn't exist, according to Obama". What he actually said was that you'd be more likely to be struck by lightning than for the person next to you to be committing voter fraud. Which is true.

Whut?!, I hear you say? A world outside clickbait headlines? Omgz!

Obama, talking about election fraud and tampering in 2008. If it's the same chance as getting hit by lightning why did he want a voting rights division in the Justice Department? Seems a waste of resources to create a whole new division of the Justice Dept. over something that's as likely and random as being hit by lightning.

I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we have Democrats in charge of the machines.

But, look, I come from Chicago. So I want to be honest, it is not as if it is just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes Democrats have, too.

Whenever people are in power, they have this tendency to try to, you know, tilt things in their direction. That is why we have got to have a, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is non-partisan and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud, is serious about making sure the people are not being discouraged to vote

Note that the video linked also includes Hillary referencing Gore's loss to Bush and infers that Jeb being Governor at the time had something to do with that.

Barbara Boxer was so certain that the voting process was corrupted that she filed a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College results in January 2005, citing, among other things, not enough voting machines in African American communities, thousands of disqualfied ballots due to faulty instructions given, thousands of extra votes not justified by the traffic through the polling station(later fixed but she wondered if others existed), etc. etc.

Barbara Boxer is talking about potentially tens of thousands of votes being affected in just one district. Exactly how often do people get hit by lightning in a single congressional district? In order for Obama to be right it must look like this in Ohio every night:

 

[TenEightyOne]

If it's the same chance as getting hit by lightning why did he want a voting rights division in the Justice Department? Seems a waste of resources to create a whole new division of the Justice Dept. over something that's as likely and random as being hit by lightning.

You conflated two things there though, voter fraud and people being discouraged by the system. Besides, why wouldn't any administration want a non-partisan group to examine voting rights? If Obama had said the opposite you'd be spitting feathers.

In other news Pence survives "plane crash". BBC.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In other news Pence survives "plane crash".

Hillary and the liberal media rigged it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You conflated two things there though, voter fraud and people being discouraged by the system. Besides, why wouldn't any administration want a non-partisan group to examine voting rights? If Obama had said the opposite you'd be spitting feathers.

In other news Pence survives "plane crash". BBC.

It's all fruit from the same poisonous tree. Voter fraud on the individual level and tampering with the process on a larger scale. When Trump refers to the election as "rigged" I highly doubt he's only referring to interference on the individual vote level, he's referring to the entire process. Obviously Democrats are concerned about it as well, when it suits them and when it makes the Republicans look bad.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's all fruit from the same poisonous tree. Voter fraud on the individual level and tampering with the process on a larger scale.

Perhaps that's arguable, but that wasn't what the original claim was.

When Trump refers to the election as "rigged" I highly doubt he's only referring to interference on the individual vote level, he's referring to the entire process.

Admittedly it's ambiguous when he says "Voter fraud!".

Obviously Democrats are concerned about it as well, when it suits them and when it makes the Republicans look bad.

That wouldn't be surprising, or news.

 

[huskeR32]

Obama, talking about election fraud and tampering in 2008. If it's the same chance as getting hit by lightning why did he want a voting rights division in the Justice Department? Seems a waste of resources to create a whole new division of the Justice Dept. over something that's as likely and random as being hit by lightning.

To investigate and combat things like overly-restrictive Voter ID laws, for one. Your focus is too narrow.

It's all fruit from the same poisonous tree.

No it's not. Systemic issues like Voter ID laws, and individuals unlawfully committing fraud, are two entirely different fruits. One doesn't need to think the latter is a problem in order to attempt to address the former. They're completely unrelated.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Whilst you sit on that, keep up with the fact that bringing her up revolved around this.

I'll take that as a retraction of your claim, then.

What that website says is irrelevant

She is not saying the article is false, she says the claim is mostly false.

You'll have to clarify these, they make no sense - the article is the source of the claim, and is the entire point of the Snopes piece.................

Tags are nothing more than a way to help identify the article in the search.

They sure do. Like when they identify an article that thinks it's talking about election fraud, which is my point.

The first part of the claim is sitting in the True category under Bernie's perception of how the election will be decided.

Which as I was arguing above is open to interpretation if you look closely at the differences between what the site is saying and what Bernie says, but if the last discussion on rigged elections is anything to go by then hey, who needs context and nuance if it doesn't fit the desired argument.

This isn't the only example, the article on Hillary getting a rapist freed of charges is another, also by Kim.

And I'm sure the bias and inaccuracy in that article is just as black-and-white as it is here.

I wouldn't hold them up as the Holy Grail of undisputed truth (like many people seem to do).

That's such a strawman. Name anyone here who has done this - don't need to find many people, just one name will do. And it's not this claim I took issue with in your original post either - a claim you still haven't provided any evidence for by the way.

If you think when people like @huskeR32 post links to Snopes they're saying "you're wrong because look, these guys say so and that's that", then I'm not sure you understand what the purpose of a fact-checking website is.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Obviously Democrats are concerned about it as well, when it suits them and when it makes the Republicans look bad.

And the Republicans are the bastions of electoral integrity? I don't recall thrm having too many complaints about voting irregularities in Florida ...

 

[McLaren]

You'll have to clarify these, they make no sense - the article is the source of the claim, and is the entire point of the Snopes piece.................

She says the claim that Bernie is calling the election rigged & unendorsing Hillary is mostly false. It's not; it goes either way as far as that claim is made in regards to the first, esp. when she doesn't place it in the false column alongside the "unendorsing" statement.

Which as I was arguing above is open to interpretation if you look closely at the differences between what the site is saying and what Bernie says, but if the last discussion on rigged elections is anything to go by then hey, who needs context and nuance if it doesn't fit the desired argument.

There is no difference. The article on the site in question is 90% of Bernie's post. This all there is to the article when it's not quoting Bernie.

In an unexpected announcement Bernie Sanders has suggested that the Presidential election may be rigged, and has unendorsed Hillary Clinton.
In a cryptic Facebook message posted on Sunday, Sanders warned American citizens of a rigged system and criticised the overly powerful elite who run it.

Kim's only argument is that he wasn't implying it was rigged b/c rigging only relates to suppressed voters, fraudulent votes, inaccurate votes to her. But why then, does she still not place "Bernie calling the election rigged" in the False column? Because, the fact is, when he says, "a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected", that is just as much in the same vain as rigging b/c only a select group of people get to choose the winning candidate unfairly regardless of what America may pick.

The article was wrong on Hillary, it's not necessarily wrong on its interpretation of Bernie calling it rigged.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To investigate and combat things like overly-restrictive Voter ID laws, for one. Your focus is too narrow.



No it's not. Systemic issues like Voter ID laws, and individuals unlawfully committing fraud, are two entirely different fruits. One doesn't need to think the latter is a problem in order to attempt to address the former. They're completely unrelated.

Nope. Same goal, same motivation, same result. The basic idea is to try and swing the election one way or the other, the method isn't really relevant.

And the Republicans are the bastions of electoral integrity? I don't recall thrm having too many complaints about voting irregularities in Florida ...

Didn't say they were.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Kim's only argument is that he wasn't implying it was rigged b/c rigging only relates to suppressed voters, fraudulent votes, inaccurate votes to her. But why then, does she still not place "Bernie calling the election rigged" in the False column? Because, the fact is, when he says, "a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected", that is just as much in the same vain as rigging b/c only a select group of people get to choose the winning candidate unfairly regardless of what America may pick.

I'm sorry, but that is factually wrong. She did call the rigging claim true. What she said was false was that he unendorsed Hillary. Just reread through the Clinton emails on Wikileaks. The fact of the matter is that special interests and very wealthy people (Soros and Koch Brothers to name two) do determine who does and does not get elected, and before @TenEightyOne and @prisonermonkeys get on my case, this exists on both sides of the asile. It was a game that was played prior to the 1900s and a game that will continue to play long after we are gone from this Earth.