3 ms·

>Trump won't have trouble finding support for his claim of a "rigged" election Trump won't have trouble with getting away saying that this election is rigged b

>Trump won't have trouble finding support for his claim of a "rigged" election Trump won't have trouble with getting away saying that this election is rigged because we know it is. Anyone with a bit of a CS background knows that electronic voting machines is a stupid idea, that was bound to be implemented by either corrupt or crappy consulting firms. They provide literally no value over conventional vote counting, this is a textbook case of "better is good's enemy". I personally don't feel comfortable casting my vote in a literal black box. And if you had any doubts the political parties that makes up this country are ethical here is a couple links you should check: [0] - Project Veritas: DNC execs and shadow consultants conspiring mass voter fraud logistics on tape - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs [1] - Again. This same time the higher-up are caught on tape in pretty sketchy stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY - funny that the boss who fired the "black-ops" employees of [0] ended up on tape as well. [2] - John Podesta emails - ""US not a democracy" - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 [3] - "Trump: WikiLeaks Shows How Clinton Campaign Rigged The Polls By Over-Sampling Democrats" - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/24/trump_wikileaks_shows_how_clinton_campaign_rigged_the_polls_by_over-sampling_democrats.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/24/trump_wiki... [4] - See the attached document about oversampling polls: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 [5] - Found this court testimony of a software developer who allegedly worked on the voting machines used in state elections - I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this video, see for yourself if you find that credible or not - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmsaDS_FwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmsaDS_FwY edit: I have no problem with a rain fire of downvotes, but perhaps you can take a little time to oppose actual arguments.

wnevets 10y ago
hacker news is voting up a comment where its primary source is a video by James O'Keefe, what a sad day this is.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  Actually, my comment is (well) below zero so you can have a nice day! You can perhaps make a little effort and judge the videos on its own merits rather than using its author as a red-herring to disqualify further discussion on the matter. In addition to that, if you took the time to read this (short) comment you would have noticed that those sources I am using are only there to further my point that political parties are unethical and that one party dominating demographics of the intellectual class mechanically sees its power of nuisance increase tremendously. The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people. They have no regards for this and the emails show how cynical they are about it.
- 3princip 10y ago
  Why attack the investigative journalist? The information is in video form. Ignore his interpretation if you feel the journalist isn't any good, that doesn't invalidate the evidence.
maxerickson 10y ago
John Podesta emails - ""US not a democracy" - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 For receipt of this message to reflect in any way on Podesta, you need to establish a pattern of communication and reliance on the advice of the sender. Imagine you think this reply to you is really stupid. Does that stupid then automatically reflect back on you?
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  You are missing the point and mistaking my comment for a partisan one (though I can understand why). My point isn't that Podesta is nice or evil. Only that the people making the political structure of the US parties (here the Democratic party) are self-aware and cynical about the current situation. I agree that in a vacuum this email alone does not tell you much. You could very well argue that this is not an admission of guilt from Podesta. And that's fine. However: 1/ the sender isn't a nobody. 2/ there are an amount of other elements that makes it highly unlikely that somehow one of the most influential back office advisor of the Democratic party isn't aware of the very unethical crap that is going on the field.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The Princeton study linked in the email is about the influence that money has in politics, not about unethical crap in the field. So it probably isn't a good link if that is the argument you are making.
codehusker 10y ago
I was willing to give your post a fair shake because I generally respect all HN posters, and because you included citations. Out of convenience, I skipped the videos and went straight for the emails. Podesta did not say "US not a democracy". That was a forward he received about a study by Princeton. There's a solid academic debate to be had on the nature of democracy and representation. I don't see how this is somehow malicious or cynical on Podesta's part. I would hope that people involved with politics have some clue about what political scientists are saying. Additionally, oversampling is a common polling technique[0]. I don't see how using oversampling for their internal polls means that Podesta forced other polls to be conducted in the exact same manner. To claim that multiple polls by separate organizations are rigged, you need much, much stronger evidence. I'm also not sure that a stump speech by an opponent ever rises to the level of evidence. Even if I accept all of your claims on face value, they don't add up to "we know this election is rigged". After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. I can tell from your two other comments that you're not just attacking, but your first post comes across as overly partisan (only accusations against Ds, citing Trump as evidence), so your larger point becomes muddled. I'm still not totally certain whether you think this a problem with Ds or both major parties or an inherent problem to a party based system or something else entirely. At the end of the day, I think we probably agree. "The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people." If that was your original comment, I think the upvotes would be rolling in. Finally, complaining about downvotes tends to make the problem worse. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/ http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/s...
- MisterWebz 10y ago
  After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. Well, that's pretty convenient isn't it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith either, so I'm going to ignore everything you're saying.
  - 10y ago

wnevets 10y ago

hacker news is voting up a comment where its primary source is a video by James O'Keefe, what a sad day this is.

AvenueIngres 10y ago
Actually, my comment is (well) below zero so you can have a nice day! You can perhaps make a little effort and judge the videos on its own merits rather than using its author as a red-herring to disqualify further discussion on the matter. In addition to that, if you took the time to read this (short) comment you would have noticed that those sources I am using are only there to further my point that political parties are unethical and that one party dominating demographics of the intellectual class mechanically sees its power of nuisance increase tremendously. The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people. They have no regards for this and the emails show how cynical they are about it.
3princip 10y ago
Why attack the investigative journalist? The information is in video form. Ignore his interpretation if you feel the journalist isn't any good, that doesn't invalidate the evidence.

maxerickson 10y ago

John Podesta emails - ""US not a democracy" - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756 For receipt of this message to reflect in any way on Podesta, you need to establish a pattern of communication and reliance on the advice of the sender. Imagine you think this reply to you is really stupid. Does that stupid then automatically reflect back on you?

AvenueIngres 10y ago
You are missing the point and mistaking my comment for a partisan one (though I can understand why). My point isn't that Podesta is nice or evil. Only that the people making the political structure of the US parties (here the Democratic party) are self-aware and cynical about the current situation. I agree that in a vacuum this email alone does not tell you much. You could very well argue that this is not an admission of guilt from Podesta. And that's fine. However: 1/ the sender isn't a nobody. 2/ there are an amount of other elements that makes it highly unlikely that somehow one of the most influential back office advisor of the Democratic party isn't aware of the very unethical crap that is going on the field.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The Princeton study linked in the email is about the influence that money has in politics, not about unethical crap in the field. So it probably isn't a good link if that is the argument you are making.

codehusker 10y ago

I was willing to give your post a fair shake because I generally respect all HN posters, and because you included citations. Out of convenience, I skipped the videos and went straight for the emails. Podesta did not say "US not a democracy". That was a forward he received about a study by Princeton. There's a solid academic debate to be had on the nature of democracy and representation. I don't see how this is somehow malicious or cynical on Podesta's part. I would hope that people involved with politics have some clue about what political scientists are saying. Additionally, oversampling is a common polling technique[0]. I don't see how using oversampling for their internal polls means that Podesta forced other polls to be conducted in the exact same manner. To claim that multiple polls by separate organizations are rigged, you need much, much stronger evidence. I'm also not sure that a stump speech by an opponent ever rises to the level of evidence. Even if I accept all of your claims on face value, they don't add up to "we know this election is rigged". After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. I can tell from your two other comments that you're not just attacking, but your first post comes across as overly partisan (only accusations against Ds, citing Trump as evidence), so your larger point becomes muddled. I'm still not totally certain whether you think this a problem with Ds or both major parties or an inherent problem to a party based system or something else entirely. At the end of the day, I think we probably agree. "The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people." If that was your original comment, I think the upvotes would be rolling in. Finally, complaining about downvotes tends to make the problem worse. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/ http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/s...

MisterWebz 10y ago
After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. Well, that's pretty convenient isn't it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith either, so I'm going to ignore everything you're saying.
- 10y ago