Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

Of equal irony is the Clinton group that rolled their eyes at conspiracy accusation are now on board with voter fraud accusations.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

Of equal irony is the Clinton group that rolled their eyes at conspiracy accusation are now on board with voter fraud accusations.

You realize that Jill Stein was a third party candidate, right?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

I think it'd be a good thing if the election had been rigged. It would explain why Trump ended up in power without requiring America to have lost its mind. It would also mean they could re-do the election and maybe not have Trump in office.

Apparently there's a discrepancy of some 5,000 votes for Trump that weren't real.

 Just Tony wrote:
As a footnote, since most pro-Socialist politicians/voters are also big fans of the single payer healthcare system, we fortunately have one in existence right here in the US of A to give you an example of what the US would be like if we went that road.

The VA.

I want that to sink in: the biggest push from the socialized healthcare crowd is to essentially ape the VA. I've been dealing with the VA since 2008 for a back injury during my deployment. I've seen firsthand how bad the system runs, and that it took until 2013 for them to simply process paperwork stating my physical limits so I could continue my military career. That's not even counting the hoops one has to go through for medication. Ever dealt with ExpressScripts? Try it some time. My wife has to go through them to get her diabetes medicines, along with her other long term medication. One prescription went unfilled for over 2 months, and we had to go out of pocket to keep her alive essentially. And if that is spread to every place universally, what is the likelihood of us being able to actually GET things when the socialized medical service fails as it routinely does?

And don't get me started on incompetence within the system. WITHOUT any sort of MRI or Xray to go off of, they sent me to a chiropractic session in their hospital. Thankfully the Dr. or whatever he was refused to administer care without knowing the extent of the injury.

By the same token, there's the British NHS (or really any of the other industrialized nation's socialized healthcare systems), which is largely excellent.

Yeah, the VA has issues. That's not a problem with single player socialist healthcare systems, it's a problem with the management of VA, just like Tyranid Maleceptors being bad isn't a problem with MC's, it's a problem with the Maleceptor just not being functional

It's not like we can't find plenty of privately run health care organizations that have similar issues to the VA as well, a friend of mine nearly died thanks to incompetence at Scripps Health, while the much dreaded Obamacare literally saved his life in another instance.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what would happen if there was evidence of rigging. It would go to the states, and both parties would take it to court. We might see some political maneuvering from both sides, something like Obama nominates a R SCOTUS nominee, the states give H the ECs. It's not going to happen, but it would be interesting.

I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

I think it'd be a good thing if the election had been rigged. It would explain why Trump ended up in power without requiring America to have lost its mind. It would also mean they could re-do the election and maybe not have Trump in office.

Apparently there's a discrepancy of some 5,000 votes for Trump that weren't real.

Well, definitely sort that out, for sure.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what would happen if there was evidence of rigging. It would go to the states, and both parties would take it to court. We might see some political maneuvering from both sides, something like Obama nominates a R SCOTUS nominee, the states give H the ECs. It's not going to happen, but it would be interesting.

I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

Unless you include 2000 (which there was some weird gak, but I don't personally), no.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what would happen if there was evidence of rigging. It would go to the states, and both parties would take it to court. We might see some political maneuvering from both sides, something like Obama nominates a R SCOTUS nominee, the states give H the ECs. It's not going to happen, but it would be interesting.

I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

Unless you include 2000 (which there was some weird gak, but I don't personally), no.

I think what'd happen is that they'd try to sort out the real votes to figure out what would've happened without the rigging without assuming anything. If that proved to be impossible, then they'd probably re-do the election for the affected area, so maybe the state would have to vote again and they'd just correct the results.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what would happen if there was evidence of rigging. It would go to the states, and both parties would take it to court. We might see some political maneuvering from both sides, something like Obama nominates a R SCOTUS nominee, the states give H the ECs. It's not going to happen, but it would be interesting.

A lot of people also thought Trump being President-elect wouldn't happen. It did.

I won't be surprised if another twist comes out of a hat, from now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

When, exactly?

Well, The Aliens and Sedition Act comes to mind, President Roosevelt (teddy) actively interfering with the internal political conflicts of a sovereign nation, JFK giving guns to a bunch of Mid-easterners to overthrow the Government of Iraq that then put Sadam Hussein into power, and also George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were found guilty of war crimes.

For the first two, uh, I'm not familiar with those parts of the Geneva Convention.

?

I can't believe I skimmed over this the first time...... But obviously you don't know the Geneva Convention at all, as that dealt with prisoners of war. I believe you probably meant the Hague Convention.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

Of equal irony is the Clinton group that rolled their eyes at conspiracy accusation are now on board with voter fraud accusations.

You realize that Jill Stein was a third party candidate, right?

Yeah, I know that. You know that Clinton is now supporting the recount, right?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

When, exactly?

Well, The Aliens and Sedition Act comes to mind, President Roosevelt (teddy) actively interfering with the internal political conflicts of a sovereign nation, JFK giving guns to a bunch of Mid-easterners to overthrow the Government of Iraq that then put Sadam Hussein into power, and also George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were found guilty of war crimes.

For the first two, uh, I'm not familiar with those parts of the Geneva Convention.

?

I can't believe I skimmed over this the first time...... But obviously you don't know the Geneva Convention at all, as that dealt with prisoners of war. I believe you probably meant the Hague Convention.

Well, yeah. Obviously I don't know that law very well, given how wrong I just got it.

But, I mean, I'm not exactly considering applying for President of the USA, am I? Shouldn't a guy who's gonna be President know stuff like that?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what would happen if there was evidence of rigging. It would go to the states, and both parties would take it to court. We might see some political maneuvering from both sides, something like Obama nominates a R SCOTUS nominee, the states give H the ECs. It's not going to happen, but it would be interesting.

I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

Unless you include 2000 (which there was some weird gak, but I don't personally), no.

If you are alluding to the 2000 election as it relates to the "hanging chads" and Florida, there is an ending to that story. Although the Supreme Court ended that recount, it actually went on in an unofficial capacity. They did multiple recounts in 8 different ways, accounting for different variables. The result was that Bush won in 5 of those ways by a good margin (one actually gave him a larger lead than the official count). Bush won two of the other methods by slim margins. The last way actually gave Gore the win, by something like 170 votes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
[
I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?
.

Actually, I think there was. Let me see if I can remember a college history class here.....In the 1960 election there was some allegations that there was vote rigging for JFK and that Texas, Illinois, and Michigan should have gone to Nixon. The Michigan race in particular was incredibly close, (something like 0.1% margin) and there is some evidence of tampering. Texas may have had tampering, but the investigation was shut down through the courts before anything tangible showed up. Illinois on the other hand more than likely had voter fraud. JFK only won the state by less than 9,000 votes. However, one county favored JFK by HUGE margins, despite everyone around them favoring Nixon. That county favored JFK by half a million votes, which was almost statistically impossible. That county, Cook County, is well known for it's political corruption to this day, and it often referred to as "Crook County".

In all likelihood, I believe Nixon should have won Illinois. That still would have left him short of winning, but had another state also been shown to have massive fraud it would have gone his way.

Nixon declined the vote recount as he thought it would kill his future political career. He was right, as he became President 8 years later.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
While you're debating about what is socialism, seems like Jill Stein says she's pushing to do a recount of the votes in the Wisconsin. And the Clinton Team doesn't seem to stop her.

Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

I think it'd be a good thing if the election had been rigged. It would explain why Trump ended up in power without requiring America to have lost its mind. It would also mean they could re-do the election and maybe not have Trump in office.

Apparently there's a discrepancy of some 5,000 votes for Trump that weren't real.

Source?

A reputable one please, because the majority of google links I found wanted to put viruses on my computer.

Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Also if it's winter you'd have to explain how the room stays warm without a fireplace.

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Probably for the same reasons we want rules opinions from GW, even if they don't understand our local meta, what our table size, army size, or house rules are. They wrote the game and the rules by which we must conform to legally play the game.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Probably for the same reasons we want rules opinions from GW, even if they don't understand our local meta, what our table size, army size, or house rules are. They wrote the game and the rules by which we must conform to legally play the game.

You kinda still have people making your rules though.

I mean, this'd be like asking the guys who wrote Rogue Trader about problems in 7th edition.

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Also if it's winter you'd have to explain how the room stays warm without a fireplace.

I cannot imagine how blown Benjamin Franklin's mind would have been upon being told what all the internet does and can do

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Also if it's winter you'd have to explain how the room stays warm without a fireplace.

I cannot imagine how blown Benjamin Franklin's mind would have been upon being told what all the internet does and can do

All the information of the world at our fingertips...and we use it for porn and dispensing one-liner advice to our friends and family.

Ben would love the internet.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, um, why does everyone wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about stuff? If you asked one of them about the war against ISIS, wouldn't you first have to explain things like cars and airplanes and how the British Empire fell apart?

I think the Founding Fathers would have more questions for you than you would for them.

Also if it's winter you'd have to explain how the room stays warm without a fireplace.

I cannot imagine how blown Benjamin Franklin's mind would have been upon being told what all the internet does and can do

I think he'd read YouTube comments, and ask, "You... just let people say things like this? To the whole world? You don't make any attempt to stop them from saying this stuff? Like, you don't have laws against this stuff?"

And then you'd feel a bit sad, and kinda utter, "Well, yeah, unfortunately we can't stop them. Our government won't even try to stop them because even though they're saying horrible, horrible things, our laws don't let us shut them up unless people start actually getting hurt."

And then he'd say, "Great! That's the way it should be!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
All the information of the world at our fingertips...and we use it for porn and dispensing one-liner advice to our friends and family.

Ben would love the internet.

Yes, I hear he was quite the horndog.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.

Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.

Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.

No they don't.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.

Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.

Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.

No they don't.

You know what we need to deal with the CO2 buildup? Some sort of thing that takes CO2 and turns it into O2, through a bizarre chemical process that restructures molecules.

You know, like what plants do to stay alive.

...Those plants we've been clearcutting away to build paved-over shopping centers where no plant can possibly grow.

Oh.

so this story has been doing the rounds


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cvs-employees-call-police-black-customers-cheese-article-1.2888260



soo.... is there like a slang term or urban myth that might've caused this or is it just as...... odd..... as it appears ?


I know that american cheese is generally viewed as pretty terrible but it's not that dangerous is it ?

 reds8n wrote:
so this story has been doing the rounds


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cvs-employees-call-police-black-customers-cheese-article-1.2888260



soo.... is there like a slang term or urban myth that might've caused this or is it just as...... odd..... as it appears ?


I know that american cheese is generally viewed as pretty terrible but it's not that dangerous is it ?

That is just bizarre... going out on a limb, I'm going to guess the employee misheard what they asked for, and mistook it for a slang term meaning they were going to tear the place up or something.

 reds8n wrote:
I know that american cheese is generally viewed as pretty terrible but it's not that dangerous is it ?

Uhh, a lot of things are more dangerous than you think they are.

You ever seen the list of dangerous facts associated with water?

If you don't tell people it's water, they get freaked the hell out by all the dangerous things about it and how it can kill people.

Then you tell them it's water, and they become comfortable with the knowledge of all the ways it can kill them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
so this story has been doing the rounds


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cvs-employees-call-police-black-customers-cheese-article-1.2888260



soo.... is there like a slang term or urban myth that might've caused this or is it just as...... odd..... as it appears ?


I know that american cheese is generally viewed as pretty terrible but it's not that dangerous is it ?

That is just bizarre... going out on a limb, I'm going to guess the employee misheard what they asked for, and mistook it for a slang term meaning they were going to tear the place up or something.

Normally people don't announce their intention to do stuff like that. They just do it.

I also would kinda like to hear what the hell the employees were thinking was about to happen and why they thought it.

Also if you imagine the same thing happening to two white guys it becomes hilarious.

 Pouncey wrote:
I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

Perhaps not direct fraud but both main parties have rigged election districts in their favor when they've been able to do so. It's a practice known as "gerrymandering" and can be achieved is several ways. Apparently perfectly legal even if it means you effectively make party X votes meaningless by distributing them so they're always outnumbered (or concentrate them so they can get a single/few important district/s).

Spetulhu wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

Perhaps not direct fraud but both main parties have rigged election districts in their favor when they've been able to do so. It's a practice known as "gerrymandering" and can be achieved is several ways. Apparently perfectly legal even if it means you effectively make party X votes meaningless by distributing them so they're always outnumbered (or concentrate them so they can get a single/few important district/s).

Yeah, I heard about that. Some of the maps of districts make you think they found out where their supporters lived and tried to write the district around them. And yup, that's exactly what they did.

I mean, the obvious way to avoid that would be to force all districts to be quadrilaterals with only four sides. Maybe also dictate that they have to be rectangles.

 Pouncey wrote:
I mean, the obvious way to avoid that would be to force all districts to be quadrilaterals with only four sides. Maybe also dictate that they have to be rectangles.

Aside from the fact that this isn't possible (think of what happens at state borders) you'd end up with districts that have nothing to do with where people live. Towns split down the middle by a district line, districts with significantly different population numbers, etc. There's something to be said for looking at how irregular a district shape is if you're testing for gerrymandering, but you've massively over-simplified the problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I mean, the obvious way to avoid that would be to force all districts to be quadrilaterals with only four sides. Maybe also dictate that they have to be rectangles.

Aside from the fact that this isn't possible (think of what happens at state borders) you'd end up with districts that have nothing to do with where people live. Towns split down the middle by a district line, districts with significantly different population numbers, etc. There's something to be said for looking at how irregular a district shape is if you're testing for gerrymandering, but you've massively over-simplified the problem.

Why would you include people in a different state in your district?

Also, yeah, districts that have nothing to do with where people live is the point of doing it this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, how does gerrymandering work if you don't separate towns into separate districts already?

I prefer to have non-partisan redistricting comitees, take tge power away from tge legilatures.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I prefer to have non-partisan redistricting comitees, take tge power away from tge legilatures.

You could do it by ZIP code, couldn't you?

 Pouncey wrote:

I don't think there's precedence for a US election being rigged, is there? Has that ever happened before?

At the local and state level, yes.

Nationally, the closest you get is the 1876 debacle where no one was sure who had won and it ended in a negotiated settlement.