Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 19, 2016

Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton

Is rigging the U.S. election possible?

Obama says it is not possible:

Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.

Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections, adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?

Moreover - Obama himself suggested that Russia may interfere with the U.S. elections: Obama: 'Possible' Russia interfering in US election

Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even "evident"?


That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.

The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities. The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created.*

The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.

It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all.

*(The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines is legitimacy.)

Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 5:54 UTC | Permalink

« previous page


No worries. I know you feel strongly about voting methods.

Rock on.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2016 0:48 utc | 101

Yeah, psychohistorian we have been told a thousand years of lies. It is a fact that strategic hedge simple score voting would eventually unravel the tight bonds of tyranny that have enslaved us. The fancy voting machines we cannot understand. The private monopoly fascist media that pretends to understand us. But who cares?

Posted by: blues | Oct 20 2016 0:56 utc | 102

The new operation Barbarossa: operation anaconda 2016

Posted by: Genius | Oct 20 2016 1:05 utc | 103

Hey blues,

you wrote:
But who cares?

I suspect all of us MoA readers care or we wouldn't be commenting here like we do. Myself, I am 68, didn't make any kids to explain this to and almost died from being sideswiped by a SUV. I still have passionate feelings about the future of our species and am proud of having those feelings and thoughts about right/wrong and what to do about it all. Only death will stop me in my push for a better world for those that come after us.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 20 2016 1:28 utc | 104

Wow Lindsey. Strange behavior. Strange story.Excuse me for being skeptical. All the stories about Lindsey Snell are bizarre, to say the least. "Fuck you" from a Muslim women? Think you're the only one here offering filming from Syria? Why does the Guardian link not corroborate the Murrow Award?

Why offer zero additional info here, other than a link to porn? VERY, VERY strange behavior.

Posted by: erichwwk | Oct 20 2016 2:08 utc | 105

re strange comment #83

Posted by: erichwwk | Oct 20 2016 2:10 utc | 106

Surprisingly civilized debate tonight, given these 2.

Also, Wallace has kept control of this thing... asked good questions to both of them and been the best moderator (IMO) by far of the 3 previous debates. At least tonight, both of them have been able to actually talk about some relevant policy... although nothing close to enlightening from either.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20 2016 2:13 utc | 107

Hillary sez USA will take back Mosul and then go into Syria to take back Raqqa. Take back? When did USA have it to begin with?

Posted by: stumpy | Oct 20 2016 2:20 utc | 108

3th debate

Just Looked and listened to Trump and that crazy bitch from hell.

Throwing from towers
Women rights
Why don't you give the money back?
Kill from Hell:
- - > no reaction

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 20 2016 2:45 utc | 109

Trump seemed subdued. Trying to be more Presidential?

- He should've:

- spoken of the connection between the Khans and the Democratic Party;

- talked about Hillary's having lied to the Benghazi families about why the reasons for the Benghazi attack? (She says she has made working for families her life's work);

- discussed the failure of the Obama Administration to protect us from terrorism and the heroin epidemic - most heroin comes from Afghanistan where we have had troops for years;

- mentioned Hillary's public/private stance on issues (from Hillary's Goldman speeches).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2016 3:01 utc | 110

The debate got particularly nasty. Trump went at her hard, but came off as being a bully. Hillary dodged and weaved through some treacherous waters, and both continued to affirm their positions, however good or bad.

Basically you have a treacherous but effective salesman that stiffs contractors versus a treacherous career politician. Two of the top in their class, respectively. Ultimately Russia, Iran and China will need to assess the future threats and assert the defense of their interests in anticipation of whatever the result may be, while being diplomatically astute.

Posted by: bbbb | Oct 20 2016 3:06 utc | 111

- He should've:

He was constantly on-topic and superior

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 20 2016 3:06 utc | 112

erichwwk @102,103: re strange comment #83

And no mention of the military rescue or the fate of colleagues.

Part of me thinks that, if it is her (no reason to believe otherwise), that her tough as nails bitchiness supports the premise that she is trying to debunk. Another part of me thinks that the CIA would not have someone that would make such a public mess.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2016 3:13 utc | 113

In the debate, Trump came across to me as someone who would make a welcome change to the phoniness of Reagan and Obama (Bill Clinton and Bush 2 came across not so much as phonies as hicks), while Hillary came across as someone playing her on Saturday Night Live.

And Trump got the best final line ever of a final presidential debate: you want another Obama term, vote for her (words to that effect).

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2016 3:16 utc | 114

@111 But his bullying attitude possibly turns off many (female) voters, and he's most definitely stiffed workers and investors. He is very very salesmanish, which is not such a good thing. Hillary doesn't change her tune, despite how awful it is. I can't say the same about Trump.

Ultimately I think Trump made Hillary look worse to me than she made him, so he won the debates based upon their respective records. That's me however, and not the general voting public.

I think people will hold their nose and vote for Hillary, while others will be scared to associate themselves with Trump by voting for him. That's how I see it anyway. Perhaps the level of anger with the status-quo will be substantial enough to tip the scales for Trump.

Posted by: bbbb | Oct 20 2016 3:34 utc | 115

You see, this is what happens when folks neglect the study of classical antiquity. The uninformed are unable to distinguish Cleisthenes from Catiline. Trump is far more latter than the former. He does not intend to liberate the plebians, merely to use them.

Given Mr. Obama's popularity, I think The Day-Glo Duckhead may have done Mrs. Clinton a solid.

Another round of the Orange Kool-Aid Jello Shots for the house, Bartender! I'll have a large whiskey.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 20 2016 4:05 utc | 116

#102 Erich

Nothing strange in there. Everything's totally coherent. I'd go as far as saying I fully trust that woman, except for one bit.

She cusses and swears because she is in fact a CIA WASP first, Muslim second. Very far second, in the case of Takfiri pseudosalafis.

Let her a mobile phone, with a 3G/4G connection. What a tragic mistake, lol. A bit like leaving a billion dollars worth of weapons for DASH to collect up in Mosul in 2014. OOPS WHAT A MISTAKE, WE WON'T DO THIS AGAIN WE PROMISE. Fucking laughable. Laughable idiotic lies by the State Department and their Al Qaida underlings. Not even my 6 year old would believe this utter bullshit.

She lies she is not CIA because she is indeed very much CIA (they don't exactly teach them to tell the truth when interrogated by anyone let alone likely hostiles such as most of us here on MoA should be).

Al Qaida / Al Nusra / whatever those pseudo-Salafist ladyboys call themselves now let her go because she is CIA. You don't fuck with real CIA when you are Al Qaida. You don't fuck up your chain of command. You listen, and if your bosses tell you to let the liaison go to Turkey, you let her go to Turkey.

And the Turks were not lying either. There was indeed a protest against the Americans. Al Nusra probably held her up as a form of peaceful objection to communicate to their suppliers and upper management that they were getting real stressed out about the latest batch of those TOW missiles running so late or being bombed the shit out of by the evil Russian bastards.

Posted by: Quadriad | Oct 20 2016 4:10 utc | 117

On e-voting. worth a listen...

Posted by: ben | Oct 20 2016 4:10 utc | 118

TheonlyclipthatIsaw ofTrumpspeaking of riggingtheelctionwasaboutfraudatthevoterend. Howeverthe major instance of fraud is in the COUNTING, which is done in secret. How else can you describe countingwhich is done by computer?Anythibng acomputerdoescanbe rigged.

An honest count requiresvotecounting done publicly ateach polling place, the results printed in the newspaper, polling place by polling place.It is important that the paper ballots not be transportedanywhere

Weknow thatitwasthe count thatwasthe biggest part of the fraudthattheHillary forcescommittedagainstBernie. election fraud.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2016 4:42 utc | 119

Pressed the record button 10 minutes into the debate and went out. Returned in time to catch the last 5 minutes of the Punditocracy's indignant Trump musings... > ... NBC's Punditette, Sara James, slipping her brain into neutral and criticising Trump because he "Hates to lose" thereby begging the question..
"Should the President of the United States of AmeriKKKa hate winning, or love losing?"

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20 2016 5:31 utc | 120

O’DONNELL: ”Are you proud of the campaign he’s running?”
CHRISTIE: “Listen, it’s – for me, the person who needs most to be concerned about the kind of campaign they’re running is the candidate. Because [now that I cannot hope for Presidential pardon, I need to be concerned by my own criminal trial that does not look good. But this Donald fella is so insane that if I cross him now, he will testify that I dropped 35 millions in old unpaid taxes by his companies because he wined and dined me, contributed to my Governor campaign and promised to introduce me to some choice broads. Luckily, unlike Donald, I know how to banter nicely with the press.]

Sorry Jackrabbit. I find it unbelievable that the world tolerates all this darkness. Posted by: blues
Hm. Perhaps you can be interested in Gnostic doctrines, namely that the material world, the one you complain about, was created not by God but by a certain Yehova, a rather peevish demure who is delighted by the injustice, futility etc. The on;y possible salvation is for the spirit to raise above the dirty material world and reach out to God who is quite a bit away from it.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 20 2016 6:57 utc | 121

Let's not get too pious and self-righteous about Trump's misogyny.

It's 400 years since The Enlightenment and Women are still 2nd Class Citizens all over the world. In India it's quite OK to fling a widow onto the funeral bonfire of her husband's body. In most countries the only way a raped woman can "prove" that the crime wasn't her own fault is if her injuries demonstrate that consent was probably not part of the equation. There would be no need for an Equal Rights Movement if women weren't regarded, and treated, in a multitude of ways, in most societies, as inferior to men.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20 2016 7:31 utc | 122

Not something that has been commented much upon but nevertheless...

I have not managed to force myself to watch because seeing her/it makes me sick but if Hillary Clinton is quoted correctly and she really said that it takes the US 4 minutes to launch nuclear weapons (as a response or not, it doesn't matter) and in addition if that is a fact rather than a "Hillary Clinton" then my own private conclusion is that the US neither has nuclear first strike capability nor nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction capability in relation to Russia and possibly not China either.

Which is probably a good thing. I might sleep better than in weeks :)

The US still has the ability to nuke themselves by trying but I'm less worried about that, and I currently don't think they'll get away with a nuclear false flag event where they slip their headchoppers a bomb or two for use in Europe. Not that they're not stupid enough to try, because they are.

As with many other Clinton issues it's different when a former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate receiving security briefings says something than when some MSM litter box paper prints something.

All of this explains how the Russians manage to keep relatively calm. Cпacибo!

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 20 2016 8:41 utc | 123

I am truly sorry if I've been a tad abrasive in my comments about voting. I have been studying this subject for 16 years, and perhaps, have met with a conspiracy of mutual complaisance (or far worse). Now I know that the fact that strategic hedge simple score voting (HSSV) has been known to be able to effectively disrupt the two-party syndrome (and eliminate the requirement for hackable voting machines) since at least the time of French Revolution. And HSSV can easily be described in one short simple sentence.

And yet we bankroll a truly vast election methods industry! LOOK at some of these absurd ivory tower showpieces:

Giant Theory I (Short PDF)

Giant Theory II (Short PDF)

And we are all paying for all this is so many ways.

It makes me pull my hair out!

(Maybe I'll vote for Trump or Stein, or not at all. At this point, what difference does it make?)

Posted by: blues | Oct 20 2016 10:27 utc | 124

IMO Hillariously is going to win. We were brainwashed/programmed to believe America would have a black president via Jewlywood movies and series and it did happen. The same will happen now.

Posted by: xyz | Oct 20 2016 11:39 utc | 125



Well, I think they meant "since the 1960s interstate highway program", but it's hard to sell the sizzle using the 1960s everyone wants to forget, an IDIQNB bonanza like 'shovel ready' Solyndra, only on a massive scale of grift funneled through union and local government pension funds and on to Wall Street hedge fund managers of the OneParty of Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz:

Billionaire Clinton "Hillblazer" Pushes New Tax That Funnels Middle Class Money To Wall Street

A new payroll deduction and retirement tax on the Middle Class (e.g. The Workers, The Makers) will help pay for HRC1s "Greatest Infrastructure Program Since WWII!!!!! In other words, take your SS and MC, invest it in IDIQNB mercenaries under Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz contract, 'grow' the cash-flow velocity, then grab that delta to pay for a massively larger Mil.Gov.FedBiz administrative overhead, and refloat all the P/E 19 ponzi funds that are about to implode, spiking rents, spiking building costs, spiking education costs, oh, what a wonderful feeding time at the zoo.

TRUMP: "I AM MR. LAW AND ORDER!" Trump will build 'The Wall', code word for making DHS a Czardom, an IDIQNB $100sBs National Police State. This is how the Legislation already passed reads: 'A new Federal Police Force under DHS, giving the Director (Czar) IDIQNB powers to build SuperMax prisons in every US State, together with a Special Judicial Force of contractor (mercenary) Federal prosecutors, judges and prison guards. (e.g. make USA like a GWOT griftfest aka New Dachau) "I AM ISRAEL'S GREATEST FRIEND" Trump will give the DOD Director Imperial powers to launch "Contingency Actions" without Congressional approval in support of Greater Israel's plan to disrupt the MENA oil-producing states, spiking the cost of energy to US citizens as Cheney did, and grifting New Ukraine as the USs newest "aid to Israel" donor state.

And all of it paid for by tax CUTS on Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz, (The Chosen, The Takers).

Maybe they meant "since the Reagan Recession Star Wars griftfest", ha, ha, ha. You gotta hand it to these guys. When it comes to endlessly scheming and plotting various ways of getting their hands on your last life savings that are never coming back, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz is absolutely relentless.

You don't have a choice.

You are owned. They own you.

Posted by: TheRealDonald | Oct 20 2016 12:21 utc | 126


The Chosen flew six nuclear armed cruise missile from Minot ND to New Orleans, in violation of every military procedure in the book, and I could go to exhaustive length to describe whatvthose ordnance redeployment procedures are. They don't include B-52 overflight with armed missiles.

All the Enlisted involved are dead, they say, all the Officers involved are terminated, they claim, then the investigation stopped there. It had to come the Director level, the Deep State level created by Rumsfeld and Cheney for continuance of government, that led to the 9/11 coup.

They say an Israeli freighter had docked in New Orleans.

They only recovered five of those missiles. So false flag? You bet, any time now. Tick-tock.

Next time you feel that you have a choice, write Minot on your rear-view mirror in lipstick.

You have no choice.

You are owned. They own you.

Posted by: TheRealDonald | Oct 20 2016 12:37 utc | 127


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20 2016 12:46 utc | 128

blues: I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet.

>> blues tech about voting.

Here, to vote for representatives (say 40 open spots) one can vote in various ways.

For a pol party ticket - or for it with some name(s) crossed out

For a party ticket with perso fill-in names added on (no party will propose 40 candidates, fill-ins can be anyone)

For a ticket of ‘best candidates’ composed by some ‘official group,’ basically anyone can jimmy up a list though it is some work, so there is a barrier. Groups = old people’s association, tenant lobby, etc.

By composing one’s own personal fill-in list. From personal exp. as vote counter what is done with the *extremely* rare (20-30 or so for 30K district) fill ins that propose more than 40 is that the top 40 are accepted, below is knocked out.

Thus: Only votes ‘for’ exist (with the exception of crossing out some ppl on a party ticket, minor imho). The grip of the pol parties is weak. Generally, ppl only use less than half their votes (they have 40 votes but only pick 5-25, say, favored candidates.) Everyone is happy with this system, specially those who join voting clubs, e.g. a sports team has hundreds of votes. It leads to surprises at the bottom end - obscure candidates seemingly elected haphazardly, which is great. Overall, not ideal imho but not horrible.

If France had a ‘ranking’ type system, when Sarko, who won, was facing Segolène Royal, 2007 (Hollande’s now ex-wife, yeah Banana Republic), Francois Bayrou (centrist) would have been elected massively…is that kind of compromise a good thing? A difficult discussion.

As for ‘third’-party votes in the US, it is unclear to me right now if they are drawing more votes away from HRC or DT.

Seems that the main point is that ppl in the US are waking up to Washington corruption, senseless 'wars', vote rigging, media bias, and so on, thru very varied channels.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 20 2016 12:57 utc | 129

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 20, 2016 8:57:17 AM | 130

People in the US know these things, that is why they hardly bother to vote

US voter turnout trails most developed countries

Posted by: somebody | Oct 20 2016 13:08 utc | 130

jdmckay says:

I can't stomach either of them: what disqualifies each stands on the the merits of their own words & actions, period

yeah, but you obviously can't stomach one of them a lot more than the other, n'est-ce pas? curious how your mealy-mouthed screed @ 29 is reserved for the candidate who actually has no public record, no political history, mostly overlooking, and even making light of, the wretched, reckless, bloodsoaked, treasonous record of the other. but your brand of ambiguous, namby-pamby deference is commonplace among the obsequious and feckless, the stalwart succors of the status quo.

Posted by: john | Oct 20 2016 13:45 utc | 131

Just under three weeks of flimflammery remains and months of autopsy begin of the show that never ends.

For those actually interested in 'third parties' and their marketing of alternatives to the established political centres, not one has ever done better than the American Communist party in causing change in political behaviour, nor will they. Please provide example of any state legislature that is controlled by Greens or Libertarians or for that matter containing any significant fraction of their body. Are there any top ten major cities that have legislative councils controlled by any third party interest, or even in the top hundred or top thousand cities and towns; none come to mind. Historically third parties have provided semi-proven alternatives to the major parties to adopt without having to disturb their status quo beforehand. Nothing attacking the core interests of a major party has ever succeeded in being adopted by either major party, and will not this time either. How indeed are any third party going to exercise control of the nation except through political self-delusion.

Political self-delusion is a condition easily cultivated, marketed amongst a public whose existence has been Disneyfied, their maturity arrested early in its development and inexperienced in conducting themselves in the ways of adults. Assisting this, the failure of education must outrank all other factors, the delay in passage into adulthood through extended schooling is likely the causative ingredient that obscures education's goal of preparing its clients to conduct themselves as adults within the group, or forging the intellectual tools needed to operate in complex conditions. A few are not adversely affected and become 'the elite' in their chosen endeavours (including leadership positions). Political self-delusion is the method of finding, determining the lowest common denominator possible. Proof, if needed, abounds in justifications for opinions held in the current political circus being conducted in the United States.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 20 2016 14:22 utc | 132

@Ben 119, I listened, thanks, good to see that people from all points onolitical spectrum see the value of more accountable, transparent voting system. I really found this interview helpful too:
Whowhatwhy audio podcast approx 30 min.
'In an age of digital and online voting, there is no way to know if the announced results of any given election faithfully express the intent of the voters. This is not only because digitized voting machines can be hacked or manipulated. The fact is, modernday ballots are not available as public documents — even after elections.

Dr. Jonathan Simon, executive director of Election Defense Alliance, tells WhoWhatWhy’s Jeff Schechtman that this is a risk we should not be taking when so much is at stake. Simon makes a data-driven argument that our computerized voting system is frighteningly vulnerable to corruption and partisan sabotage — at a time when corruption and partisanship are rampant. He argues that we have sacrificed transparency for convenience and speed, and that nothing short of votes counted observably and by hand can undo the damage to democracy.'

@ jdMckay, as a supporter of Jill Stein, do you know if she has any electoal reform ideas in her current platform re, decreasing vulnerability of vote to hacks? Seems like something that might get her some social media attention and a few votes. Not that it changes things too much for this time around...watching from Canada and hoping that the world does see 202o and onwards....

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Oct 20 2016 14:46 utc | 133

Note re voting machine hacks, I remember reading back in 2012 that there is a motivation on part if potential hackers (and counter hackers) to make the polls very close, the race almost a dead heat so that with outcome will be believed....
I guess even the hackers and counter hackers and counter counter hackers don't really know who will win until the result is confirms...USA Election:the Olympics for computer hackers?

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Oct 20 2016 14:49 utc | 134

Oh darn, need to do a better proof read of my comments :-/
Sorry. Above should say ...'so that ANY outcome will be believable'

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Oct 20 2016 14:51 utc | 135

42;???Both evil?How does Trump rate evil as being vulgar?And remember the actual vulgar ones the zionists,are the ones who created smut city,which he personifies,at least to them.
She is evil personified,as she is a willing participant in destroying the democratic process by approving and enjoying the MSMs total assassination of her opponent Donald Trump.
And he destroyed her again last night,and the serial liars know it,as they scream today more BS,and that he is trying to assault democracy by refusing to possibly go meekly into the night like BS and al gore,who both ran with their tails between their legs,after being denied electoral justice.
She looked like a drugged up bubbleheaded porcelain bobblehead,nodding like as nitwit,a demonic smile,and a cacophony of lies.And notice her hand gestures that mimic Obombas?

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20 2016 15:17 utc | 136

Bluemot5 @ 134

@ jdMckay, as a supporter of Jill Stein, do you know if she has any electoal reform ideas in her current platform re, decreasing vulnerability of vote to hacks?

She's spoken a lot about US prez elections being rigged, but mostly for reasons different then Trump. Summarized more or less in her candidacy being almost entirely ignored by media & her exclusion from the debates.

Her running mate is a Lifelong human rights activist (and black) & both of them have highlighted "Black Lives Matter" and minority issues a lot.

As far as electoral reform, she's advocated:

- abandon electoral college, popular vote wins.
- tiered ballots, meaning candidates can be entered on ballot in order of preference. She's spoken about her POV of value in this quite a bit.

Generally I simply gently suggest people who are interested listen to some of her speeches and interviews, there's a bunch of them on YouTube. The RT interview is pretty good, so is her speech/town hall at Cambridge. CNN did a townhall with her as well a few months ago which all in all was pretty good.

Her platform, proposals and reasoning for them is pretty well layed out on her website. That's best way to find out what she's all about, however my experience is most people are not interested in taking the time to do that: if it doesn't come from TV or car radio...

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20 2016 19:33 utc | 137

JdMckay,@138. yes I agree with you, Jill Stein's platform likely not going to be given much mainstream coverage. I have listened to several interviews with her on social media, always impressively SANE!

But the whole hackable voting machine vs observable ballot count is surely an issue near and dear to many all over the political spectrum who no longer trust the voting system? Just surprised that she hasn't brought that issue up....

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Oct 20 2016 19:58 utc | 138

Just a few links for those interested.

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 21 2016 0:20 utc | 139

lysias at 74. That was a really trivial, obfuscating discussion. Dead red herrings all over the shaggy carpet. They (Greenwald and Klein, re Podesta e-mails / elections) seemed to be wanting to find any argument, any hook, to diss Assange. Such as contrasting him with Snowden, which was irrelevant. Klein went the furthest (as I expected, I’m NO admirer) by trotting out that Assange was ‘acting out of vendetta.’ And the both seemed to agree that powerful ppl have less right to ‘a private life’! Ridiculous. Total waste of time. Well I was cleaning the kitchen…

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 21 2016 14:02 utc | 140

I think it is wrong to conflate vote rigging, which is criminal, with manipulation. Some manipulation are clearly nefarious, like depriving people of the right to vote or selectively making the voting difficult, and I never heard of that done in favor of Democrats, then there is gerrymandering which is a bit more bipartisan, and finally, the propaganda. In some sense, the largest impact is from the last one. Conversely, countering the propaganda has the largest payoff.

Australia seems to have the best voting system, but also very good propaganda from the oligarchy. Thus a good voting procedure can tilt the system, but only marginally.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 21 2016 16:15 utc | 141

#12-Are you really psychotic liberal airhead or you just pretend ?????

Posted by: sejmon | Oct 21 2016 16:17 utc | 142

Brazil do electronic elections for years.
And yes there are no recount!
But there is a way TO DO IT. If you simply attach a printer in every voting cabinet. The paper printed will be used only if recount is needed.

Simple! Cheap! Fast! Secure! And works!

Posted by: Zico | Oct 21 2016 17:23 utc | 143

Do you think they might try fake "assassination" of Hitlary by "a fanatic Trump supporter" ?

The more she becomes a liability the more probable such operation seems...

Posted by: ProPeace | Oct 24 2016 5:25 utc | 144

@ ProPeace about assassinations

I think none will occur before the (s)election but all bets are off after that depending on the outcome. I think both Clinton II and Trump are marked folk by brainwashed and delusional "patriots" but probably only Trump by the "deep state".

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 24 2016 5:56 utc | 145

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.