[therealpoder]

(12-13-2017 12:48 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

The demographic breakdown of this election just compounds to the inevitability of a breakdown of the US.

98% black women voted Dem
92% black men voted Dem

27% white men voted Dem
36% white women voted Dem

How are you going to keep a society together like this?

Is that racial voting break down any different from prior elections in Alabama? Is it that many people who would've supported Moore believed in the allegations and stayed home? Was there a problem with Moore's messaging?

I haven't studied any of those questions in much detail but I suspect the racial breakdown in voting is not that much different, if at all, from prior elections. It is just that whites could still get Republican candidates elected despite 90 some percent of blacks voting for the Democrats so it really didn't matter. And I imagine that a better candidate without Moore's baggage would've won with ease. President Trump won Alabama handily after all. I think a lot of people just stayed home.

As far as the question of "How are you going to keep a society together like this?", it may cause ethnic conflict in the long term but, in the short term, if whites begin to block vote in a somewhat higher percentage than now 80-85%, elections would just be a formality.

Some whites that vote Democrat I imagine truly believe in left liberal policies but such policies (e.g. welfare state, nationalized health care, etc.) only gain huge support in homogenous societies. And whites are increasingly demonized in the media as well. I suspect as the country become more diverse and politics become further divided by ethnic lines, more white liberals will move to the center and then right. The idea of cross racial alliances (whites, Asians and successful members of other minority groups, for example) to get certain candidates elected shouldn't be precluded either.

[Samseau]

Quote:

And I imagine that a better candidate without Moore's baggage would've won with ease.

Which baggage? The made up bullshit of 40 year-old accusations? Do you seriously think any other candidate would have gotten a different response, except for the establishment stooge Luther Strange?

It's all politics. The bottom line is that only someone who is extremely powerful can run against both the GOPe (controlled opposition) and the Dems at the same time. Otherwise it's a herculean task. Even in a deep red state, normal Republicans with a stellar career cannot beat the uniparty. Roy Moore was a vietnam vet, lawyer, then Supreme Court judge, and it still wasn't enough. We are up against awful, evil traitors who will stop at nothing to suck America dry.

[therealpoder]

(12-13-2017 05:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

And I imagine that a better candidate without Moore's baggage would've won with ease.

Which baggage? The made up bullshit of 40 year-old accusations? Do you seriously think any other candidate would have gotten a different response, except for the establishment stooge Luther Strange?

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. It matters what the voters believe. And some voters believed in the allegations enough to write someone else in or stay at home. 51% of voters said that the allegations were definitely or probably true. That matters.

As far as an alternative candidate, some commentators are mentioning Mo Brooks but I don't know enough about it to confirm one way or the other.

[Samseau]

(12-13-2017 06:11 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

And I imagine that a better candidate without Moore's baggage would've won with ease.

Which baggage? The made up bullshit of 40 year-old accusations? Do you seriously think any other candidate would have gotten a different response, except for the establishment stooge Luther Strange?

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. It matters what the voters believe. And some voters believed in the allegations enough to write someone else in or stay at home. That matters.

As far as an alternative candidate, some commentators are mentioning Mo Brooks but I don't know enough about it to confirm one way or the other.

You didn't read what I posted. Anyone besides the establishment stooge would have been hit with these false sexual allegations. Same thing happened to Trump, Clarence Thomas, etc. etc.

The baggage is always there for any anti-establishment candidate. That's how politics in America works. The (((media))) makes sure of it.

[Samseau]

Also Matt Drudge played a big part in taking down Moore. Apparently Drudge hates Steve Bannon for whatever reason.

   

Inter-Republican feuding played a big role in the takedown of Moore.

[AneroidOcean]

(12-13-2017 01:11 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Trans- Nope, a zerohedge.com commentator said a judge has already ruled the electronic votes don't need to be saved. The results are probably erased already how convenient.

Are you sure about that? "zerohedge.com commentator" could be anyone saying whatever they "feel."' A simple search returns:

This article reports that the records are to be preserved for 6 months.

[Disco_Volante]

(12-13-2017 02:27 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:11 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Trans- Nope, a zerohedge.com commentator said a judge has already ruled the electronic votes don't need to be saved. The results are probably erased already how convenient.

Are you sure about that? "zerohedge.com commentator" could be anyone saying whatever they "feel."' A simple search returns:

This article reports that the records are to be preserved for 6 months.

A judge ordered them destroyed right after the election.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/alabam...roy-moore/

Quote:

A full hearing for the case is set for December 21, but the state has a green light to continue destroying its digital voting records until that time.

Yes the law says they have to be kept for 6 months but you know judges can basically do whatever the fuck they want, even if their order is eventually overturned they only need maybe 10 minutes to delete all the vote records. I suspect this was mass electoral fraud. They're learning from their previous errors like Debbie wasserman / emails and whatnot to buy themselves cover to just get rid of all traces immediately and permanently without hesitation.

Their tactics are like a virus-resistant parasite that grows (learns) from each failure and they just up the ante every time with dirtier tricks. Trump was launching a voter fraud commission to look into California then the left started with all this Nazi stuff and 24/7 coverage of an event in charlottsville that was led by a man who voted for Obama. I wouldn't put anything past them.

[Repo]

The paper votes are still kept for 22 months. The digital copies are just pictures of the actual ballots. If you really wanted to investigate fraud, I would think you would count the paper ballots and see if they match what the computers tallied.

[AneroidOcean]

(12-13-2017 05:37 PM)Repo Wrote:  

The paper votes are still kept for 22 months. The digital copies are just pictures of the actual ballots. If you really wanted to investigate fraud, I would think you would count the paper ballots and see if they match what the computers tallied.

But as Disco_Volante's article (thank you for the link) states:

Quote:

Priscilla Duncan, the attorney who represented the four Alabama voters named in the case, argued that while those paper ballots are kept for 22 months, “the paper ballots aren’t really what’s counted” and only an unlikely state-wide recount would consult the paper ballots.

Fucking sneaky bastards. There's next to zero cost/effort involved in keeping the digital records, what reason other than potential fraud could there be in destroying them so quickly? It makes ZERO sense.

[Repo]

@Aneroid

I get that it's unlikely, but if you actually want to get to the truth recounting the digital copies wouldn't be enough if the premise is that the election was hacked.

But yes, I agree it's dumb for a close election to get rid of them when the cost to keep them is probably trivial.

[AneroidOcean]

(12-13-2017 07:17 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@Aneroid

I get that it's unlikely, but if you actually want to get to the truth recounting the digital copies wouldn't be enough if the premise is that the election was hacked.

But yes, I agree it's dumb for a close election to get rid of them when the cost to keep them is probably trivial.

Yes and no.

In terms of performing a recount of the paper ballots to determine what the actual vote was, yes.

In terms of being able to determine whether the counties fraudulently reported the tallies or if the machines were actually compromised and mis-reported.

The end result of the election would change, but being able to determine if it was hacking/manipulation of the machines vs the human staff is an important distinction.

[Kid Twist]

Samseau, what is your prediction regarding the Republican party over the next 3-8 years and do you hold a high % probability that DT takes a second term?

[Buck Wild]

Has Bannon turned on Trump?

From the Guardian:

Quote:

"Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian."

We're all now well-acquainted with Bannon's war against the GOP leadership in Congress. But has he now opened a new front against the President? Maybe he thinks he can sink Don Jr/Ivana/etc without damaging the father--but I think that's naive.

What I do know is that he can't find nationalist candidates to run--and win--against establishment stooges, then this will be an awful short insurgency.

[Buck Wild]

Bloomberg now reporting that the President has turned his guns on Bannon:

Quote:

“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” President Trump says in emailed statement, Bloomberg News reports.

This is, apparently, a statement emailed directly from the President's desk.

Whatever you think of Trump or Bannon, the only real winners here are the Democrats in my view. The question now is if this new front in the GOP civil war will affect control of the House in November.

Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

[Gmac]

(12-13-2017 06:19 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Also Matt Drudge played a big part in taking down Moore. Apparently Drudge hates Steve Bannon for whatever reason.



Inter-Republican feuding played a big role in the takedown of Moore.

Makes sense now...!

[Kid Twist]

Is there any way this is a distraction? Huckabee Sanders said they still talk. I don't like throwing 5D chess type ideas out there (lol) but it seems very weird that this eventuality stuck, of all of the possibilities.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Also Matt Drudge played a big part in taking down Moore. Apparently Drudge hates Steve Bannon for whatever reason.

Revenge of teh ghey.

[PharaohRa]

The GOP civil war will only be a net positive if it helps us flush the cucks out. Otherwise, this is a net loss.

[Enoch]

Bannon was trying to be the General of the New Republican Party. Never try to outshine the boss.

This is Trump's revolution. Think about it, he comes down the escalator, and in his first speech, says we HAVE TO BUILD A WALL WITH MEXICO.

This is the start of a reverse in course I thought would never happen.