I'm-not-voting-for-either-candidate

[squ1d]

Now we've all aired our viewpoints, my final remarks:
a) I didn't say it was all the "Bernie bots fault". I'm pissed off with Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Clinton getting out and protesting against Trump... because they could have prevented Trump.
b) If you don't think the values platform of Hillary and Bernie are similar, and both very different from Trump then I don't really know what to say. Incidentally "Revolution and stuff, down with the system man!" isn't a values platform.
c) What Fisher said

[SciFi Chick]

Now we've all aired our viewpoints, my final remarks:

I'll take this as my cue to derail the thread. I am so, so, so personally embarrassed and sorry for how Trump treated Turnbull. Also, I can't believe Turnbull thought he could keep it a secret. *sigh*

[vendic]

Now we've all aired our viewpoints, my final remarks:
a) I didn't say it was all the "Bernie bots fault". I'm pissed off with Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Clinton getting out and protesting against Trump... because they could have prevented Trump.
b) If you don't think the values platform of Hillary and Bernie are similar, and both very different from Trump then I don't really know what to say. Incidentally "Revolution and stuff, down with the system man!" isn't a values platform.
c) What Fisher said

(a) Can't disagree. It was however coming across as though they were the sole bearers of responsibility and I disagreed. I don't like hypocrisy either. I just don't know if there were enough of them to have made a significant difference and when compared to other options it's straining at a gnat and swallowing a fly.

(b) I do think they were more similar than different, certainly when compared to the other choice. Where I disagree is that I don't think Sanders supporters were all about the platform. There was a huge anti-establishment movement on both sides and Sanders tapped into that despite his platform rather than because of it. If you're anti-establishment you had two choices realistically in the election. Lets face facts, most preferred Sanders but when left with no other choice some went to Trump. You may not like it but it is what it is.

(c) He said a lot of things. One which was factually incorrect. Do you agree with him on that too? Voter fraud was not about the whether independents were allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries. Yes there were some ignorant people that held that view but to look simply at that issue and avoid the rest is not accurate. It is spreading false information willfully or not. I'm not accusing fisher of deliberately doing that, just that he may have not seen the evidence before or appreciated it's depth. By doing so all that we achieve is yet again division of people and blame them for their own stupidity when in reality they did nothing wrong. Pushing this reasoning is only serving to dismiss the underlying legitimate issues many had. Furthermore it means that they will never agree because they are accepting their own version of facts.

[SciFiFisher]

Now we've all aired our viewpoints, my final remarks:
a) I didn't say it was all the "Bernie bots fault". I'm pissed off with Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Clinton getting out and protesting against Trump... because they could have prevented Trump.
b) If you don't think the values platform of Hillary and Bernie are similar, and both very different from Trump then I don't really know what to say. Incidentally "Revolution and stuff, down with the system man!" isn't a values platform.
c) What Fisher said

(a) Can't disagree. It was however coming across as though they were the sole bearers of responsibility and I disagreed. I don't like hypocrisy either. I just don't know if there were enough of them to have made a significant difference and when compared to other options it's straining at a gnat and swallowing a fly.

(b) I do think they were more similar than different, certainly when compared to the other choice. Where I disagree is that I don't think Sanders supporters were all about the platform. There was a huge anti-establishment movement on both sides and Sanders tapped into that despite his platform rather than because of it. If you're anti-establishment you had two choices realistically in the election. Lets face facts, most preferred Sanders but when left with no other choice some went to Trump. You may not like it but it is what it is.

(c) He said a lot of things. One which was factually incorrect. Do you agree with him on that too? Voter fraud was not about the whether independents were allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries. Yes there were some ignorant people that held that view but to look simply at that issue and avoid the rest is not accurate. It is spreading false information willfully or not. I'm not accusing fisher of deliberately doing that, just that he may have not seen the evidence before or appreciated it's depth. By doing so all that we achieve is yet again division of people and blame them for their own stupidity when in reality they did nothing wrong. Pushing this reasoning is only serving to dismiss the underlying legitimate issues many had. Furthermore it means that they will never agree because they are accepting their own version of facts.

I chose to ignore the claims of wide spread voter fraud in the primaries. Because at the end of the day there were no criminal or civil charges filed. And as I stated in a previous post: I don't want media reports. I want the same level and type of proof that would stand up in a court of law. People running around screaming that they were cheated after losing an election is not exactly proof. I made this decision after basically being told multiple times on Facebook and occasionally here that no amount of expertise is sufficient to prove anyone's premise.

As for the independents not being allowed to vote in the primaries. Each state has slightly different rules. For example, in California all I had to do to vote for the Republican candidate was ask for a ballot. If I wanted to vote for the Democrat Nominee I had to declare myself a Democrat. I didn't have to join the party. I didn't have to swear allegiance to the Leftist Mantra. All I had to do was declare I was a democrat a few weeks before the primaries. The state of California would send me a Democrat primary ballot. I assume that in each State some state of affairs exists that is similar to this.

Gallop reports that in 2013 43% of the population identified as Independent. In the Presidential election independent and third party voters accounted for approx. 7% of those who voted. or about 7 million people. So, if we just look at the ones who didn't vote for HC or DT because they didn't like either of them we can assume that some percentage of them would have voted for Bernie. We know that Bernie was polling well among independents. If 2 million of those 7 million had voted Democrat in the primaries we would be talking about why Bernie lost the presidential election. Or Trump.

As I stated in my previous post. It would be disingenuous to say that was the only factor that caused Trump to win. But, I think a lot of people are focused on it because it is quantifiable and you can make a credible argument that even with rigged primaries the DNC would probably have had to give Bernie the nomination if enough independents had declared democrat this one time. And based on Gallop's polls I suspect a significant percentage vote Right or Left anyway.

[squ1d]

Now we've all aired our viewpoints, my final remarks:

I'll take this as my cue to derail the thread. I am so, so, so personally embarrassed and sorry for how Trump treated Turnbull. Also, I can't believe Turnbull thought he could keep it a secret. *sigh*

Started a new thread about this.

[vendic]

I chose to ignore the claims of wide spread voter fraud in the primaries. Because at the end of the day there were no criminal or civil charges filed. And as I stated in a previous post: I don't want media reports. I want the same level and type of proof that would stand up in a court of law. People running around screaming that they were cheated after losing an election is not exactly proof. I made this decision after basically being told multiple times on Facebook and occasionally here that no amount of expertise is sufficient to prove anyone's premise.

I've been told that the primaries are run by the DNC and they can cheat and make the rules anyway they see fit because it is a private organisation and they have no obligation to be fair. IOW, if you have a private club and you want to have an unfair election within it, that is perfectly ok legally.

Now you're saying that because no charges were filed you dismiss the claims. Circular logic right there because they can be completely rigging the system and it is legal.
Even so, there also have been attempts to sue the DNC for bias etc. I don't know why you think there wasn't.

Here's one that's funny in a twisted sort of way: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/dnc-fil ... hrown-out/

The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss

Another one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2603876

More than 200 outraged New York voters have joined a lawsuit claiming the party affiliation on their voter registration changed without their consent. The voters say they are unfairly being shut out of Tuesday’s primary.

If you don't care about people filing law suits, then how about an investigation of the allegations by a non partisan group (Election Justice USA) and their long report: http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Dem ... _EJUSA.pdf

Was all this fraud legal? Yes. The DNC is a private group and can do what the hell it likes.
Was it ethical. Fuck no.
Did it piss of people? Hell yes, a lot of them.
Did it backfire on them and turn the election letting Trump win?
Given the numbers of people involved (40+% independents), I think the answer to that is pretty obvious given how little it would have taken to beat the most unpopular candidate in history. You really have to fuck things up monumentally to lose that one, and, they did.
So from my perspective the DNC had access to a huge base that they pissed off by their own hands but all they can do is blame others.
They refuse to take responsibility and that 40+% of people won't forget that lightly. Trust is earned. They lost it and lost it well. Worst of all, they are doing nothing about it. Just like an unrepentant criminal. While nothing will happen to them legally, politically they have screwed themselves and continue to do so.

Prepare for another term of republicans with or without Trump. The stage is already set.

[Cyborg Girl]

I basically agree re: the Bernie Forever and Stein crowds being stupid. However, I have to work with some of them now because time travel is impossible.

OTOH yeah, if/when they Fascists are out of office, these folks are going to have to learn that participating in a democracy is not optional. And especially not optional if people on the ground are supposed to have political clout. If people in Boston get e.g. a socialist party off the ground locally, and it flops because Bernie/Stein people didn't stay involved, I am going to be pretty pissed.

[Cyborg Girl]

On a more current note, I wish everyone just refused to invite Jill Stein to protests. Not only has Stein herself done nothing worthy of a leadership position in resisting Fascism (!!!), her party has now torpedoed our only progressive option twice in general elections, and failed to be useful or even politically present between those elections. We might as well tie ourselves to lit sticks of dynamite.

[Tarragon]

Or you could work to create a system that allows more than 2 parties. New legal structures in voting and in congressional apportionment and committee appointments would go far toward this. Having a workable structure for multiple parties will allow people to both vote for someone who represents them, while settling for a consensus candidate. It's been mentioned in another thread, but if you want to talk about legal ways to prevent tyranny...

[Cyborg Girl]

@Tarragon, definitely agreed on that. The winner-takes-all system has to go.

Unfortunately, Part I of that is going to be "holding the line against a developing Fascist regime that wants us dead."

[vendic]

Or you could work to create a system that allows more than 2 parties. New legal structures in voting and in congressional apportionment and committee appointments would go far toward this. Having a workable structure for multiple parties will allow people to both vote for someone who represents them, while settling for a consensus candidate. It's been mentioned in another thread, but if you want to talk about legal ways to prevent tyranny...

Seriously.
People constantly complain about the two party system and everyone with half a brain knows it cannot represent the people well but refuse any attempt or opportunity to change it. Same with the electoral college. They support it till it backfires on them then they sit around moping how they really won the popular vote. No. You lost the election. To I might add the most unpopular candidate in history. You lost it because it's a stupid system that has outlived it's usefulness and it's corrupt.

IIRC, there are now more independents than registered Democrats or Republicans.
Even being the majority they are treated with contempt. If you don't side with us you're helping the opposition. Well fuck. If we side with either party in a two party system we just keep going down the same shit slide fearing we might get dirty if we fall on the grass. The two parties are convincing the general public that independents are an insignificant minority when they actually have bigger numbers than them and are getting bigger. Then they blame independents for not wanting to vote. People have lost faith in the system. Lets try fixing that problem first. You know, have a government that works for the people instead of themselves and the lobbyists/economic elite.

When you have so little that life is a struggle, what difference is it to you who gets in? Most people don't even have the time to research things. We however seem to be looking down from our ivory towers complaining that they didn't vote the way we wanted them to or they just couldn't be fucked voting. I'm sure there are plenty that had to make a choice of food and pay bills or vote because this country doesn't care if they vote or not and there is certain advantage to making your workers unable to or seriously inconvenienced to be able to vote. Many see no change regardless of who is in. No change as in, no change in their economic circumstance. When you're struggling already, more of the same is not an appealing concept.

But you know what, more of the same is the platform that lost and got Trump in because he promised change. As we all know, when a politician promises something the reality is that you get less than was promised. That's what Trumps appeal was. He promised something other than nothing. That appealed to a hell of a lot of people.

[grapes]

Maybe people voted for Trump because they thought he wasn't really a Republican

As for Bernie folk protesting Trump, maybe they woulda protested Clinton too, had she won. Depends upon what she do.

[geonuc]

As several people have stated, because it's true, the political parties in the US can and do make their own rules in determining who to put forward as their nominee for the general election. And the party leaders can favor whomever they want. If the Democratic Party leaders want to favor a stalwart Democrat over a long-time Independent who has chosen to seek the Democratic nomination, they can. And apparently they did. It isn't fraud and it isn't unfair.

The voters have every right to decide if they like how the party is selecting the nominee and may choose to vote for another party's candidate. That's how political party change occurs in this country - if too many party members express dissatisfaction with how things are being run, or with the party platform, the party leaders either adjust or see their candidate lose.

There was no fraud in this election. Or at least none that has come to light.

[Rommie]

As several people have stated, because it's true, the political parties in the US can and do make their own rules in determining who to put forward as their nominee for the general election. And the party leaders can favor whomever they want. If the Democratic Party leaders want to favor a stalwart Democrat over a long-time Independent who has chosen to seek the Democratic nomination, they can. And apparently they did. It isn't fraud and it isn't unfair.

The voters have every right to decide if they like how the party is selecting the nominee and may choose to vote for another party's candidate. That's how political party change occurs in this country - if too many party members express dissatisfaction with how things are being run, or with the party platform, the party leaders either adjust or see their candidate lose.

There was no fraud in this election. Or at least none that has come to light.

Yes. But I'm pretty tired of reminding certain people about this, so last time I'm going to say it.

[vendic]

Hold on, so if you claim that you are going to hold fair and unbiased elections as per your charter and don't, that's not fraud?
If you accept money from people who are giving it to you based on your claims of not being biased, that's not fraud?

Well shit. I now have just found a new way to make money. Legally.

[vendic]

The voters have every right to decide if they like how the party is selecting the nominee and may choose to vote for another party's candidate. That's how political party change occurs in this country - if too many party members express dissatisfaction with how things are being run, or with the party platform, the party leaders either adjust or see their candidate lose.

Apparently they did. Welcome President Trump.
How do people treat those who exercised this basic right?
This thread is an example as to how. They are vilified as traitors. If that's the best this system has got, it sucks.
And things won't change. That tale is already in the works. They really won. It's the electoral college that was the problem. It was the Russians. It was the Bernie bots. If only our deceit hadn't been made public. It was everyone but themselves. Zero accountability and responsibility on their side and this I truly believe is what will give you a second term of this government.

Now you may disagree with me, hell plenty do. Just understand that I'm not a single voice saying this. I'm just the single person on this forum pointing to the band and saying, listen to the music, it's getting louder.

There was no fraud in this election. Or at least none that has come to light.

I'm genuinely curious. What would you call what was happening?
If you think this is just about independents not being able to vote, you're missing the point I was making and I'm not making this point because of me, I can't vote. I am relaying what people are complaining about and have supplied sources.
Are you dismissing the sources as invalid and if so why?
I think that's a fair question to ask.

[vendic]

Maybe people voted for Trump because they thought he wasn't really a Republican

As for Bernie folk protesting Trump, maybe they woulda protested Clinton too, had she won. Depends upon what she do.

Pretty sure you're right on both accounts. Only the percentages are in question.

[geonuc]

Everything the DNC did was legal. Fraud, by definition, is illegal. Ergo, not fraud.

You may not like how the DNC runs the party but your recourse (a voter's recourse, that is), is either to vote for another candidate or complain to DNC leadership that if they don't do things more to your liking, you will vote for another candidate.

If you're a candidate, your recourse is to seek the nomination of another party or attempt to get on the ballot as an independent. Senator Sanders was, and still is, an independent, so I imagine he explored that option thoroughly.

[vendic]

Ok, so you are of the opinion that because people donated money to the DNC but suspected they were biased, even though the DNC claimed multiple times that they were unbiased, they have no case.

I can understand that from a legal perspective. The DNC lawyers made the same argument. You can't be duped if you knew you were contributing to a biased system. Sure I don't think it's a moral position for them to take but it is legal (no personal offense intended or made to yourself).

However, I'm sure there were some who donated thinking that the DNC were unbiased as their charter mandates and as they themselves so often protested when accused of bias. Have they just not being duped into giving money under false pretenses? Of course, those people will have to make their own case in law for that.

Manipulating elections is called electoral fraud. In this case because they are a private group, it is legal.
So in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics, what can we agree on to refer to the process of legalized electoral fraud?
Suggestions?

[grapes]

"Business as usual"?

[vendic]

lol

Sadly that's more true than false.

A rouse by any other name would smell just as sour.

[vendic]

I just read through this thread, apart from missing some posts from people I realised I have not really being clear so could easily have offended people on this site. When I said the Democrats are to blame, I am not referring to the democratic voter base. I am specifically referring to the establishment Democrats and the DNC. I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for Hillary and do not blame them at all. They did exactly what they should have. They voted for who they believed would be the best candidate.

My big beef with the Democratic party and DNC is that through their actions they have decided the direction of this country. A small group tampering with the will of the majority. I have big issues with that.

I just wanted to clear that up and apologize if that did not come through clearly.

While I am at it, I'll also say I have the greatest respect for the people on this board. I'm a firm believer in never arguing with idiots. They only bring you to their level and beat you with experience.
So know that if I'm debating/questioning anyone here it's because I value your opinions. I might not always agree with you all but I would hate to be caught in a big circle jerk as the alternative. Group think gets us in more of a mess than challenging ones views. That's my personal belief anyway.

[SciFiFisher]

I just read through this thread, apart from missing some posts from people I realised I have not really being clear so could easily have offended people on this site. When I said the Democrats are to blame, I am not referring to the democratic voter base. I am specifically referring to the establishment Democrats and the DNC. I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for Hillary and do not blame them at all. They did exactly what they should have. They voted for who they believed would be the best candidate.

My big beef with the Democratic party and DNC is that through their actions they have decided the direction of this country. A small group tampering with the will of the majority. I have big issues with that.

I just wanted to clear that up and apologize if that did not come through clearly.

While I am at it, I'll also say I have the greatest respect for the people on this board. I'm a firm believer in never arguing with idiots. They only bring you to their level and beat you with experience.
So know that if I'm debating/questioning anyone here it's because I value your opinions. I might not always agree with you all but I would hate to be caught in a big circle jerk as the alternative. Group think gets us in more of a mess than challenging ones views. That's my personal belief anyway.

I thoroughly agree. Most of my ire is not with the people on FWIS. Except when you all are blind to the great wisdom I am dispensing.

I may thoroughly disagree with your position on a topic but I still like you all.

[SciFiFisher]

Ok, so you are of the opinion that because people donated money to the DNC but suspected they were biased, even though the DNC claimed multiple times that they were unbiased, they have no case.

I can understand that from a legal perspective. The DNC lawyers made the same argument. You can't be duped if you knew you were contributing to a biased system. Sure I don't think it's a moral position for them to take but it is legal (no personal offense intended or made to yourself).

However, I'm sure there were some who donated thinking that the DNC were unbiased as their charter mandates and as they themselves so often protested when accused of bias. Have they just not being duped into giving money under false pretenses? Of course, those people will have to make their own case in law for that.

Manipulating elections is called electoral fraud. In this case because they are a private group, it is legal.
So in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics, what can we agree on to refer to the process of legalized electoral fraud?
Suggestions?

I think the challenge may be partly about the word "fraud". At least here in the U.S. it is almost always used to imply that someone is a crook. In fact, the definition of fraud has two main interpretations. Criminal fraud generally falls into the category of "theft by false pretenses". This usually involves money or things of value. The civil claim of fraud generally is defined as the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim. That harm may involve money, loss of services, or property.

The DNC is essentially in a position of being able to claim that while they deliberated behind closed doors (via email) about which candidate they preferred they were not guilty of breaking any laws. Nor did they ever commit fraud criminally or in a manner that would allow anyone to sue them and expect to win. I am not sure what fact(s) they misrepresented or concealed that the Bernie supporters relied upon and consequently suffered harm as a result. Yes, the DNC did say they would follow the primary process and allow the voters to choose a candidate. Which they did. They may not have favored Bernie but they did allow him to campaign. They did allow him a public forum. What harm did the Bernie supporters suffer? Aside from not having their candidate chosen?

In essence what they engaged in was a form of electoral gerrymandering. And we might be able to call it that. And maybe it wasn't morally ethical. Maybe it wasn't playing nice. These days no one seems to be playing nice.

[Tarragon]

In essence what they engaged in was a form of electoral gerrymandering. And we might be able to call it that. And maybe it wasn't morally ethical. Maybe it wasn't playing nice. These days no one seems to be playing nice.

It kind of resembles a "bait and switch" and that can be a type of fraud. Generally, it looks like they used the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, which if not illegal is often seen as hypocritical.