What's new

Election Fraud

This is really a very decent post.

Before I took off for a couple of days, I thought the article from realclearpolitics was helpful, at least for me, in organizing the aspects of this issue.

Only about 1000 actual fraud votes found by the effort JD made, but an important restoration of the federal election law Clinton sorted declared wasn't going to be enforced.

I admit to being very obtuse, and I gather links or sources in my own effort to understand stuff. Your posts have been helpful.

The only ones not interested in voter fraud are the democrats. Where do you think the 3 million votes Trump lost by came from? wink
 
The only ones not interested in voter fraud are the democrats. Where do you think the 3 million votes Trump lost by came from? wink

LBJ in Texas, and Daley in Chicago..... long famous for their dead support bae of very dependable voters. It is apparently much easier to vote in the grave than roll over in there.

I calculate that in Russia, Stalin's wisdom proved convincing to many of his fan base worldwide:

"I don't care who votes, just who counts the votes"

Like lemmings..... or maybe penguins or even sheep..... Americans can be very patriotic about turning out to vote, apparently with more dedication to that ritual than to reading, or paying attention to the news. It is, for many, a sort of bragging rights social issue.

But our idea about ballot confidentiality or secrecy sorta gets turned against us.

I'd like to sell a new kind of "ballot" and "ballot box". Little glass balls of a certain chemical dye color, one color for each voting issue or for each candidate. You turn up at the judges' table and get yourself fingerprinted, and you fingerprints on all the little glass balls as well. The judge has to look at your voter id picture and information, which you must obtain from the country registrar after submitting citizenship and residence proofs. The election judge has to sign on the line before giving you your set of balls. Then you walk past the clear plastic bins with their identifying color code and ballot issue. You drop in your appropriate ball in the "Yes", " No", or "Candidate" bin. Since the balls are uniform in volume and weight, the "ballot box" will record a liqauid volume displacement and a weight change. The balls will be periodically removed, and weighed.

The process and all the operations handling the dispensing and counting of the balls will all be recorded on camera, and the "counting" will also be on video display continuously. When the last voter has cast the last ballot, the count will be publicly visible, and there will be no vans driving up the next day with harvested "ballots" from anywhere.

If a voter feels like there mighjt be a problem, he can ask for his balls to be verified. they will have his fingerprint, a RFID, and can be electronically sorted from the pile if wished, just to make sure nobody has been cheated in any way.

The fact is that "progressives", "globalists" and other sorts of ideologues who believe their grand cause justifies anything they can do to establish it over the public wisdom, are people who must be watched. They are principled liars. They lie because their beliefs demand it. They are Jason's people, who should not be called "liars" if only they believe their own toxic notions.

However, I don't think that rule of morality is consistent with the Ten Commandments, with Christian precepts, or any other self-consistent moral framework. It is evidence of delusional insanity, and should be a disqualification for voting. I mean, people like that have no integrity, no functional conscience, and indeed no humanity. They are the very definition of the Walking Dead, or the nonprescient victim of power-seeking sociopaths.

When I run across people who cannot respond to any reasonable comment with respect or comprehension, who just repeat todays talking points from their team managers, I know I don't have a very good chance of saving them from their delusions, but I must try.

It's the only decent, human, thing to do. The value of a human being is immense, and it's worth the effort to try to reclaim them from their state of witless delusional beliefs.
 
If a voter feels like there mighjt be a problem, he can ask for his balls to be verified.

I beg your pardon?

The fact is that "progressives", "globalists" and other sorts of ideologues who believe their grand cause justifies anything they can do to establish it over the public wisdom, are people who must be watched.

However, I don't think that rule of morality is consistent with the Ten Commandments, with Christian precepts, or any other self-consistent moral framework. It is evidence of delusional insanity, and should be a disqualification for voting. I mean, people like that have no integrity, no functional conscience, and indeed no humanity. They are the very definition of the Walking Dead, or the nonprescient victim of power-seeking sociopaths.

Wow, quite a totalitarian vision. Get those reeducation camps up and running....
 
I beg your pardon?





Wow, quite a totalitarian vision. Get those reeducation camps up and running....

He's asking for "more centrist" but what he describes is "totalitarian state". And he doesn't have a way of justifying it
 
I beg your pardon?

one way to recognize a transbrained ideologue who is no longer truly "human" is the absolute loss of humor.

It is nevertheless the fact that as humans we can in a sense do runaway insanity of almost any imaginable kind. So it is a traditional concept that we remind ourselves to do the good things humans can do, and reject the worse things we can do. So, as I was saying above, debasining our intellect and our character with the evils of ideological convictions, and then doing "inhumane" things to others to force them to comply with any kind of "government" beyond the minimal essential laws that protect our human rights, is a big step away from our "humanity".

still, preaching against ideologies is a kind of religion, and should not be in the government's hands in any sense, any more than preaching for them, as Marxists are always doing.





Wow, quite a totalitarian vision. Get those reeducation camps up and running....

stop with your baseless projections of your own totalitarianism upon others who actually believe the government should have no power to rig elections, define acceptable beliefs, establish religions or push propaganda.

I envision no camps like progressives, and other ideological totalitarians must eventually resort to in their determination to regiment humanity, but there Is no need to compromise freedom of speech, or scientific accuracy, in describing the essential, normal, human nature.

Cows, for example, do not seem ever to develop "ideologies" or twisted visions of nobility and virture. They accept grass, water, sun, and whatever weather with a stoic fundamental realism. They need no government supervision, really. Cowboys would perhaps seem like our government bureaucrats, but cows do not let cowboys change their beliefs. We can castrate them, butcher them, or turn them loose anywhere if we please, but we do not regulate their ideas of reality. It is only humans, in all of Nature so far as we have known, who can develop schemes of management for the world, for others, and imagine some kind of "truth" that can justify our plans.

So while we have "human" notions, both good and bad, it is also one line of reasoning I consider more acceptable, that humans make themselves truly "human" by rejecting propaganda, submission to totalitarian governance, and prescriptions on speech and thought.

So get over your penchant for lying projections about the fascism you imagine to be in others, and take a good close look at how it affects your own opinions.
 
He's asking for "more centrist" but what he describes is "totalitarian state". And he doesn't have a way of justifying it

your lost in your rhetoric. I am not a "centrists", and what I described is an election system that is hopefully resistant to tampering from "establishment" or partisan interests. A truly "transparent" election, that is all.

I actually reject most government claims of authority, jurisdiction, and management.
 
So get over your penchant for lying projections about the fascism you imagine to be in others, and take a good close look at how it affects your own opinions.

Yeah, except you expressly stated we should revoke the right to vote for people you clearly do not like, in the very comments of yours that I quoted in comment #40 of this thread. Leading me to wonder just who the hell you think you are?
 
If a voter feels like there mighjt be a problem, he can ask for his balls to be verified.

I beg your pardon?

To which @babe replied: "one way to recognize a transbrained ideologue who is no longer truly "human" is the absolute loss of humor."

Hey, who's without a sense of humor here? I admit, I was juvenile to quote that line and respond to it that way. But, it was right there for the taking, I thought, yeah, I'll be juvenile, lol.

But, now you want to claim I'm not even truly a human being? Lol. I have no totalitarian tendencies at all, and if there's any projecting going on, well, you know....

You know, I am progressive in some ways, liberal in some ways, and actually very conservative in many ways. I'm really not the ideologue you think I am. My "crime", from your perspective, consists of recognizing that Trump was a demagogue, who appeared on the scene at just the right time to marshal the allegiance of many disaffected members of our society. And because I believe that, rather then your claim that Trump "just wants everyone to be happy", you want to take my rights away, for that reason. You've said as much right in this thread. Should not be allowed to vote. The very reason I sarcastically suggested you'd next be in favor of camps for progressives and globalists. You are the one caught up in an ideology, as I see it.

You know, assuming we are both human, it's likely we both could benefit with examining our own beliefs. Probably a good thing for anyone from time to time. I do it all the time, believe it or not. But you want to take my rights away from me, judging from your comments in this thread. Well, you can't.
 
your lost in your rhetoric. I am not a "centrists", and what I described is an election system that is hopefully resistant to tampering from "establishment" or partisan interests. A truly "transparent" election, that is all.

I actually reject most government claims of authority, jurisdiction, and management.

*Ahem*

Your suggestion:
What I am saying is that ballots should be handled like bank cash transport companies do it. Armed guards, double witnesses signing off every movement.

Reality:
Bank cash transport is commonly known as Cash-In-Transit (Hereby cited as CIT)

CIT Transport
Most armored cars have two to three occupants:

  • A driver, who is normally never allowed to leave the vehicle until it returns to the garage
  • 1–2 guards who deliver the cash or valuables
Depending on the jurisdiction, the guards are armed with weapons. Most guards are issued with shotguns, while others carry handguns. Submachine guns and even assault rifles may be equipped by those officers in some countries. These guards are required to have firearms training before they can carry them.

Six member states of the European Union prohibit weapons during cash-in-transit (CIT) operations.[8]

They are also required to wear bullet-proof vests[9] and/or ballistic helmets.

And this is just transportation. Who provides this? Private organizations, like Brinks(Probably the most famous incidents) and Loomis(Wells Fargo in cognito). Companies either inept of keeping (real or fake) votes safe, or companies that have broken America's trust in them.

Nothing's changed. You still don't know what you're asking for, or at what price, and if you ever got it you'd just bitch about it anyway. Your unknown unknowns are staring you in the face, you just don't want to see them cuz... I dunno... 'merica? no step on snek? #TinfoilUSA?
 
Yeah, except you expressly stated we should revoke the right to vote for people you clearly do not like, in the very comments of yours that I quoted in comment #40 of this thread. Leading me to wonder just who the hell you think you are?

We already deny voting rights to felons.

That we do not have adequate laws to prevent organized hijacking of elections by little squads of law-breaking cheaters who will lie like hell every step they take would not be out of line. People like Comey and Brennan and Hillary and Obama have broken enough laws already, felonies. We need to prosecute them, and people like you who have gloated about your damn "Resistance" campaign and even declared you'll be shooting at people who don't cave for your program.

Well, it is a hard line I suppose. We have long considered political parties like Communists who advocate armed overthrown of our nation, and globalists who advocate an end-run around whatever shreds of our original constitution there may still be in some marginal sort of legal applicability as qualified to vote.

But the fact is, we should require as the Constitution states, an affirmative oath of allegiance to our Constiution and laws as a qualification for citizenship..... opps…. we still do. That is the fact. I've been there and watched the process where people legally become citizens. They do take that oath.

That it is, like many other laws, ignored...… is actually not such a good idea.

dunno if I really care to have police prowling the webz finding people who openly gloat about the overthrow of our country and bringing a complaint to the voting registrar.

I've helped out in some disability care centers with hundreds of people who really just don't know where they are, or whether they are drooling, or pissing..... or who can't hold a spoon.... or who think they are Jesus' bride or somesuch. I don't know what the rules are regarding such people who clearly do not have the capacity to comprehend, or make a choice for themselves.

But really, you have no case when you are calling for the overthrow of the country by violent means. I think we have laws for removing citizenship from people for some reasons. Well, we should. But we never will..... unless it's the rednecks out with their guns shooting up the UN blues come to collect them, I suppose. Being an avowed believer in a political dream that requires the overthrow of the country will probably never be a reason to deny voting rights, but if those believers gain the power they want, there will actually be no more "voting rights" for anyone who differs from that belief...….

I'd rather just smile and say "there, now. It'll be alright. Just take these meds and you'll be better.", than put you on a list where you have to prove your sanity or functional intellect. But I know there will never be such a list.... until dreamers hell-bent on utopia run the government......
 
Last edited:
Back
Top