[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.a4fd06b1ef3b

 

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

He goes from shaming voter fraud to bragging about how those people could vote for him, and he's smiling about it. It's hard to take his complaints about this election being "rigged" when he jokes about them benefitting him.

 

Oh, and here's my favorite part of that article.

 

Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald told the Register that it was the first time in 12 years he could remember having to report possible voter fraud.

Interesting how the first actual proof of rigging the election is actually Trump's own group. It seems that Trump is actually the one who's guilty of encouraging crime, and is merely projecting onto Clinton to avoid culpability for his own camp.

[Tourmaline]

Oh, and here's my favorite part of that article.

 

 

Interesting how the first actual proof of rigging the election is actually Trump's own group. It seems that Trump is actually the one who's guilty of encouraging crime, and is merely projecting onto Clinton to avoid culpability for his own camp.

No, you're just blindly indignant. Hillary had this rigged since way before the general election. If Trump was only rigging at the finals of a 32 man tournament then Hillary had this rigged since the first match and much more so than Trump even at his worst. All your favorite part does is show how much of a tool you are, though admittedly the belief in self is admirable. Unless you think Trump had been promoting this stuff since before Kaine and Hillary made contact about this.

 

Worse so she was probably just hired by Hillary to paint Trump worse than he really is. Hillary used the tactic of hiring actors to act as Trump supporters to make that group look bad often before.

[Phantom Roxas]

Oh, I should have clarified. I do believe that Hillary rigged the primary election, and even then, I'm willing to hear that she didn't. I don't believe that she's had as much influence in rigging the general election as she did in the primary. Hillary cheated her way to get here, but if Trump loses to her here, that's because of his own failings.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

pew research did a big study on it showing how massive of a problem it is: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

this isn't about voter fraud. It is about the issues in the voting system. Literally the only mention of the word "fraud" is that these inefficiencies could lead to the perception of fraud. Trump used this source before, and this issue with it was pointed out before.

 

As for dead voters, this discussion has been played out. They are registered due to negligence in purging the voter list. Just because they are registered doesn't mean they are voting.

[Sunshine Jesse]

If the economy really WAS doing well, the fed would have raised rates, but it's not only not doing so but is considering negative rates(which is basically insane-asylum economics where you want something in the future than you do now, it's flipping time-preference on its head), and this is on top of both a student loan bubble raising education and an auto loan bubble and skyrocketing debt.

 

And even with all of those artificial boosts that don't last you still get this:

 

AND healthcare costs are going to go up in 2017.

 

All from St Louis Fed.

It's like trying to gauge the happiness of an an alcoholic or a drug addict, you know he won't stay happy forever and he STILL isn't particularly happy either way.

 

 

And sure, voter fraud isn't exclusively a democrat issue. Nobody ever claimed it was, but democrats do it overwhelmingly more, with clinton saying in wikileaks emails that she will try to commit it in some way.

 

There's a video on it here. and pew research did a big study on it showing how massive of a problem it is: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

 

CBS also did an investigation on it and two thirds of dead voters were registered democrat in california(well, she is the dead people candidate at least).

What is that, a graph for ants?

 

What is it with people not linking the wikileaks links themselves? It's not a claim I can take at face value when I've been shown dozens of times in this very thread that what's said in them is misinterpreted, taken out of context, or outright lied about.

 

 

Good one, now look at the Feds newest monetary policy

 

It's a bubble love. Newsflash darling, the more you lower intrest rates the more it looks like it's growing. Problem is, inflation is gonna go up faster now and it's not sustainable. Nice try though

 

Voter fraud is a problem regardless of who does it, but it's predominantly a dem thing. How about we just pass if laws and fix it. You raise me one Iowan. I raise you 3 HRC Californians

 

How about I one up you with a bunch of HRC people beating up a homeless black trump supporter?

The difference is that it was Trump himself. It's a bit different than supporters being a******s (although still ultimately pointless because everyone already knows Trump is a racist and it's a big part of his appeal in some circles).

[mido9]

Hey Mido, do you have a link to those graphs that allow us to look at them in more detail? I.E. see the individual graphs and see the actual axis and maybe the data making them up? 

 

Because I looked on the St Louis federal bank site but couldn't find the plots, and without being able to do that I am incapable of seeing any of those graphs in any level of detail. For all I can tell from there is at some arbitrary time these things went up arbitrary amounts. It doesn't actually tell me anything because I can't read any of the details that make them pertinent. 

 

Where did you get the fed considering negative (I presume) interest rates from as well? 

It's from here

 

Student Loans

Food Stamps

Federal Debt

Labor Force Participation

Black Inequality (Employment is a bigger number tho methinks.)

Median Family Income

 

Most of these numbers have the same general trend of all of them all getting better from 1980s/1990s ish until 2008 and afterwards and they just keep going down.

 

The NIRP thing is from here, from CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/news/economy/negative-interest-rates-janet-yellen/

[Aerion Brightflame]

My thanks. 

 

I had no issues with the things the plots were showing, because all are fairly intuitive with how you'd expect things to be in the wake of the recession. It was just the fact that without being able to see the details on the graphs they were useless because it's just an indication of a trend. Not any details about said trend. A handful of these links (Like median income, social benefits and black unemployment) do indicate the economy getting better in the past few years which is something. To expand upon your initial metaphor; yes the guy is still a drug addict but we've managed to get him hooked on meth instead of heroin. It's still shitty, it's just not as bad as things once were. 

 

The source for the interests rates is from the start of the year. Whilst sure, that is still technically the fed considering negative interest rates, we have far more recent sources talking about them considering increasing the interest rates in the following months. In fact in the very article about the economic growth that was posted earlier: 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/12/news/economy/federal-reserve-minutes/index.html?iid=EL

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The difference is that it was Trump himself. It's a bit different than supporters being a******s (although still ultimately pointless because everyone already knows Trump is a racist and it's a big part of his appeal in some circles).

It's ironic y'all are throwing a bigger fit than the supporter himself. Typical outraged whites speaking for the great injustice that that stains their skin

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/huma-abedin-anthony-weiner-clinton.html

 

It begins 

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302942-republicans-show-confidence-in-early-voting

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/25/trump-doctrine-foreign-policy-column/92718072/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=iuvs59bexp00940k00dth

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voting-machines-switching-votes-hillary-texas

 

She has EXP

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/29/secret-2006-audio-emerges-hillary-clinton-proposing-fix-palestinian-election-406020?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

poll tampering

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-29/abc-wapo-effectively-admit-they-tampered-their-polls-hillary-lead-shrinks-2-points

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoZ_utS0LuA

 

Pot Kettle Black Jesse, your side are full of the same filthy thugs, thank god a group of Trump supporters came around before they killed her

 

Also since we don't post links from Breitbart here, can we also have the left stop posting stuff from Slate and HuffPo?

[cr47t]

 

 

Also since we don't post links from Breitbart here, can we also have the left stop posting stuff from Slate and HuffPo?

First off, that map would be very inaccurate based on what is really happening. I acknowledge it's "based on Facebook activity", but what kind of Facebook activity? Just mentioning him? Supporters speaking out? Give us a explanation.

 

Second, I'm pretty sure you (or someone else) posted a Breitbart link on this thread a while back.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

"Based on Facebook activity"

 

Have we actually reached this point..?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First off, that map would be very inaccurate based on what is really happening. I acknowledge it's "based on Facebook activity", but what kind of Facebook activity? Just mentioning him? Supporters speaking out? Give us a explanation.

 

Second, I'm pretty sure you (or someone else) posted a Breitbart link on this thread a while back.

Trump supporters. It does't mean much though, since enthusiasm is higher among Trump supporters than HRC supporters

 

 

For example

 

3 events in Iowa yesterday 

 

 

 

"Based on Facebook activity"

 

Have we actually reached this point..?

It's a good indicator, Obama crushed McCain and Romney in that measure both times

That being said, I'm ashamed to report my father has voted HRC today. Mother offset him by voting Trump, but even my family is full of it's share of self serving idiots

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-will-win-the-election-and-is-more-popular-than-obama-in-2008-ai-system-finds.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not worried

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's ironic y'all are throwing a bigger fit than the supporter himself. Typical outraged whites speaking for the great injustice that that stains their skin

I'm not throwing a fit you long list of personal insults. I thought I made it clear that it was in jest.

 

also

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/early-voting-statistics-2016-election/

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/29/hillary-clinton-enjoys-solid-lead-early-voting-reutersipsos-poll.html

 

once again, republicans can only be confident by ignoring facts

 

Also since we don't post links from Breitbart here, can we also have the left stop posting stuff from Slate and HuffPo?

Those sites are largely different from Breitbart. It's a complete false equivalence. There's a difference between "partisan leaning" and "long list of times where they were wrong or intentionally misleading."

 

Breitbart is literally on the level of Infowars or WorldNetDaily.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not throwing a fit you long list of personal insults. I thought I made it clear that it was in jest.

 

also

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/early-voting-statistics-2016-election/

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/29/hillary-clinton-enjoys-solid-lead-early-voting-reutersipsos-poll.html

 

once again, republicans can only be confident by ignoring facts

 

Those sites are largely different from Breitbart. It's a complete false equivalence. There's a difference between "partisan leaning" and "long list of times where they were wrong or intentionally misleading."

 

Breitbart is literally on the level of Infowars or WorldNetDaily.

It's a bit funny that you're accusing republicans of cherry-picking when both those pieces do so quite egregiously 

 

I'd like proof on to the claim that it's false equivalence please 

 

Edit:

 

Jesse, is this you?

 

 

What do Trump-supporting Hispanics have in common? They were generally born in the US and mainly speak English

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:f081f65d1b2e4667827557112a143f49

 

This is a neat read

 

https://twitter.com/stello_official/status/792449105767178240

 

Holy sheet, Cali dems reduced to bribing voters 

[Sunshine Jesse]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

 

The ACORN undercover videos (doubles as further proof that O'Keefe is a fraud), and the Loretta Lynch deal are both pretty huge.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

 

The ACORN undercover videos (doubles as further proof that O'Keefe is a fraud), and the Loretta Lynch deal are both pretty huge.

I asked you to prove to me that they were objectively worse than HuffPo or Slate

 

NYT has gotten things wrong and corrected it too lol

 

You can keep beating that horse all you want about O'Keefe, but the fact remains that FEC records corroborated his claims this year lol

[Sunshine Jesse]

Let me go ask Reddit so they can form an opinion for me.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Let me go ask Reddit so they can form an opinion for me.

Careful now, r/HC r/Pol and r/ETS is on suicide alert after seeing images like this

 

[Dad]

No, you're just blindly indignant. Hillary had this rigged since way before the general election. If Trump was only rigging at the finals of a 32 man tournament then Hillary had this rigged since the first match and much more so than Trump even at his worst. All your favorite part does is show how much of a tool you are, though admittedly the belief in self is admirable. Unless you think Trump had been promoting this stuff since before Kaine and Hillary made contact about this.

Worse so she was probably just hired by Hillary to paint Trump worse than he really is. Hillary used the tactic of hiring actors to act as Trump supporters to make that group look bad often

I frankly don't give a sheet who you vote for. But since you don't seem to have a basic understanding of refuting an argument without resorting to petty insults, and you've proven that your intentions are purely antagonistic, maybe you should take a time out from debates.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I frankly don't give a sheet who you vote for. But since you don't seem to have a basic understanding of refuting an argument without resorting to petty insults, and you've proven that your intentions are purely antagonistic, maybe you should take a time out from debates.

Are her claims wrong though?

 

Funny how all these accusers have some tie or the other to the clinton foundation and came out of the woodwork at the 11th hour

 

Hina may not have been polite, but you get irritated when you hit your head against the brick wall for the 10th time

[Dad]

What part of "no personal attacks" is so hard to understand? Her claims are fine. Her attacking Pat for his views are not. You want justice for everyone who thinks like you, but only those who think like you.

 

You're not going to justify this behavior by saying "oh but x is right". And you're certainly not going to tell me an opinion or view that's different from yours is something you agree with. Because then you would be a liar. So what the funk are you doing?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What part of "no personal attacks" is so hard to understand? Her claims are fine. Her attacking Pat for his views are not. You want justice for everyone who thinks like you, but only those who think like you.

 

You're not going to justify this behavior by saying "oh but x is right". And you're certainly not going to tell me an opinion or view that's different from yours is something you agree with. Because then you would be a liar. So what the funk are you doing?

No, I take issue with Roxas statement

 

Oh, and here's my favorite part of that article.

 

 

Interesting how the first actual proof of rigging the election is actually Trump's own group. It seems that Trump is actually the one who's guilty of encouraging crime, and is merely projecting onto Clinton to avoid culpability for his own camp.

 

That's a load of bullshit, one woman in Iowa was a Trump voter who tried to vote twice, Roxas conveniently ignored like the 10 similar cases that happened with Dems this weeks. He was full of sheet and Hina called him out on it. Roxas should have stopped at it was a trump supporter. And then maybe pushed for voter id laws since this election SHOULD be fairly done on both sides. Hina wasn't wrong in calling him a fool, because instead of doing that he went off extrapolating some vendetta against Trump

[Aerion Brightflame]

It doesn't matter if Hina is right; they could have and should have addressed the issue without resorting to personal insults. 

 

Being right or wrong does not factor into it because it's the conduct that is the issue. Hina, under there own admission, doesn't have much interest in engaging in the debate here, so it would be nice if the little they did post was of decent conduct instead of personal sheet. Take like Mido, mido posts very little but at least keeps focused on the issues instead of the personal sheet. 

 

It's fine if you take issue with what Roxas posted. But it doesn't justify Hina's choice of addressing things. 

[Dad]

You go off on on vendettas against Clinton all the time. If I was one of her fan boys and I decided I had an issue with your claims, and said you were some sort of tool, you'd be up in arms playing the victim card like you do so often.

 

This isn't about the argument. That's not what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the manner of argument. What's so difficult about this for you? I gave and asked for little. I asked that you not attack each other like you're ten.

 

You can't even do that. It's ridiculous.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You go off on on vendettas against Clinton all the time. If I was one of her fan boys and I decided I had an issue with your claims, and said you were some sort of tool, you'd be up in arms playing the victim card like you do so often.

 

This isn't about the argument. That's not what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the manner of argument. What's so difficult about this for you? I gave and asked for little. I asked that you not attack each other like you're ten.

 

You can't even do that. It's ridiculous.

The problem is you want hina to debate Roxas. Fair.

 

Roxas statement about Trump mentally reflecting his own voter fraud on Hillary has no evidence what so ever. It's hard to debate that. Say what you want about the O'keffe videos, but alteast out side has some ground to stand upon. The numbers aren't in his favor here.

 

I go on vendettas against Hillary, yes. I call her a treasonist guilty of espionage. I have emails written by her to balance my claim. You can argue that it's not enough, sure.

 

But Roxas gave nothing to back up his assertions. And ignoring a 10:1 occurrence does make you blind

 

When I made my claim on scalia, y'all shut me down asap like you should have. Why should Roxas be given special privileges for his bullshit?

[Dad]

The problem is you want hina to debate Roxas. Fair.

 

Roxas statement about Trump mentally reflecting his own voter fraud on Hillary has no evidence what so ever. It's hard to debate that. Say what you want about the O'keffe videos, but alteast out side has some ground to stand upon. The numbers aren't in his favor here.

 

I go on vendettas against Hillary, yes. I call her a treasonist guilty of espionage. I have emails written by her to balance my claim. You can argue that it's not enough, sure.

 

But Roxas gave nothing to back up his assertions. And ignoring a 10:1 occurrence does make you blind

 

When I made my claim on scalia, y'all shut me down asap like you should have. Why should Roxas be given special privileges for his bullshit?

I was unaware of the difference between arguing a bad point, and special privileges. You weren't shut down. Your argument t was successfully refuted because your argument was terrible. We attacked the argument. Not you. It's boggling to me that you understand that.

 

I mean, I get that you're trolling, but I also suspect that you actually don't understand out of willful ignorance.