US voting machines are vulnerable to hackers

[stconquest]

4 hours ago, FakezZ said:

Oh yeah because the ones that did not vote would definitely vote for killary... As it stands the silent majority did vote for Trump. As far as the people that voted are concerned. We have no info on the ones that didn't vote. Plus many far left douche-bags equated voting for Trump to being a Nazi and KKK member so I doubt everyone who would vote for Trump was vocal about it.

Okay...

 

45% of eligible voters did not vote.  They are silent.  26% of active voters voted for Trump, they are not silent. 

 

45% > 26%

 

 

 

[BiscuitMassacre]

9 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Okay...

 

45% of eligible voters did not vote.  They are silent.  26% of active voters voted for Trump, they are not silent. 

 

45% > 26%

 

 

 

Its a Silent majority. According to the polls, Hillary would have won, but thanks to the silent majority, that made up a huge percentage that was not in the polls, we may still have a country.

[tlink]

2 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Its a Silent majority. According to the polls, Hillary would have won, but thanks to the silent majority, that made up a huge percentage that was not in the polls, we may still have a country.

or a lot of hillary sympathisers did not vote, but when presented with the choice vote hillary. or the polls data was made up, or whatever, can be a lot of things.

[Ryujin2003]

42 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Its a Silent majority. According to the polls, Hillary would have won, but thanks to the silent majority, that made up a huge percentage that was not in the polls, we may still have a country.

Because our country doesn't currently exist?

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Because our country doesn't currently exist?

I meant future tense. 

[Ryujin2003]

11 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

I meant future tense. 

It eill continue to exist with or without Trump. It's very disturbing to see how many people are just extreme about this stuff. We would have had the same if Hillary won.

[BiscuitMassacre]

4 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

It eill continue to exist with or without Trump. It's very disturbing to see how many people are just extreme about this stuff. We would have had the same if Hillary won.

ik. Its pretty ridiculous. I was just talking. 

[FakezZ]

16 hours ago, stconquest said:

Okay...

45% of eligible voters did not vote.  They are silent.  26% of active voters voted for Trump, they are not silent. 

45% > 26%

Lol are you trying not to understand or do you really not understand what I said?  I just said that there is no evidence that the 46% of the voters that didn't vote would actually vote for Hillary. So there is a possibility that if they had voted then she would have won or maybe Trump would have with a higher percentage. Saying that the majority did not vote means jack... How can you even compare the 45% that did not vote with the people that voted Trump? It makes no sense. Unless you misunderstood what silent majority means...

14 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

It eill continue to exist with or without Trump. It's very disturbing to see how many people are just extreme about this stuff. We would have had the same if Hillary won.

If she had won yeah not much would change tbh... BUT it is about sending a message. Hilary had all the mainstream media, all of Wall st. and so much money on her side and she still did not win. The propaganda from the likes of CNN did nothing to help her. Imho Americans voted the best out of what was offered. If Bernie was against Trump, it would be an easy victory and he would make a great president. But no she had to fix the elections... Fuck her and everything she stands for.

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, FakezZ said:

Lol are you trying not to understand or do you really not understand what I said?  I just said that there is no evidence that the 46% of the voters that didn't vote would actually vote for Hillary. So there is a possibility that if they had voted then she would have won or maybe Trump would have with a higher percentage. Saying that the majority did not vote means jack... How can you even compare the 45% that did not vote with the people that voted Trump? It makes no sense. Unless you misunderstood what silent majority means...

I defined silent majority in my post in order to serve my argument.  74% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump.  That is the majority.  Trump did not have a huge silent majority.  He got fewer votes than Romney, fewer than Bush's second run.  The people voting with him are mostly staunch republicans.  They would vote for a wooden stick if the sign attached to the stick had an elephant on it.

 

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that having 26% of the voting public is anything to brag about when flying the Republican colours.

 

I never said anything about who the 45% of eligible voters would vote for.  That is all on you and is a stupid argument in this context.

 

Now that the election is over and Trump did not have a HUGE silent majority, how dumb are you after the fact; when all the evidence is actually available?

[apm]

23 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I defined silent majority in my post in order to serve my argument.  74% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump.  That is the majority.  Trump did not have a huge silent majority.  He got fewer votes than Romney, fewer than Bush's second run.  The people voting with him are mostly staunch republicans.  They would vote for a wooden stick if the sign attached to the stick had an elephant on it.

 

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that having 26% of the voting public is anything to brag about when flying the Republican colours.

 

I never said anything about who the 45% of eligible voters would vote for.  That is all on you and is a stupid argument in this context.

 

Now that the election is over and Trump did not have a HUGE silent majority, how dumb are you after the fact; when all the evidence is actually available?

 

so what?

you can say the same about hillary.

who didnt vote doesnt matter. its their fault that trump will be the president, if they dont like him.

by not voting they say that they do not care who becomes president.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, apm said:

 

so what?

you can say the same about hillary.

who didnt vote doesnt matter. its their fault that trump will be the president, if they dont like him.

by not voting they say that they do not care who becomes president.

What do you mean so what?  Context is everything.

 

I was mocked for saying Trump will not have a huge silent majority.   ...and I was right.  

 

As far as those that did not vote, how do you know what reasons those voters had for not voting to the extent of faulting them.

 

There have been compelling arguments for the dissolution of a program called "Crosscheck" in more than 30 states.  It is designed to work as an anti-fraud system for voting, but there is evidence of it being used to suppress votes in key states.

 

If a regular joe goes to the polling station on election day and is told their name has been flagged by Crosscheck, that person won't be voting that day.  They can't say, or do, shit about it either.  They just go back to work or home and continue on with their life.

[FakezZ]

10 hours ago, stconquest said:

I defined silent majority in my post in order to serve my argument.  74% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump.  That is the majority.  Trump did not have a huge silent majority.  He got fewer votes than Romney, fewer than Bush's second run.  The people voting with him are mostly staunch republicans.  They would vote for a wooden stick if the sign attached to the stick had an elephant on it.

 

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that having 26% of the voting public is anything to brag about when flying the Republican colours.

 

I never said anything about who the 45% of eligible voters would vote for.  That is all on you and is a stupid argument in this context.

 

Now that the election is over and Trump did not have a HUGE silent majority, how dumb are you after the fact; when all the evidence is actually available?

Really? So just because you define the silent majority that way that makes it the right definition? And you call ME stupid. Fuck, this whole conversation was ironic from the beginning, but I did not expect it to go this far . Fyi the silent majority as defined by everybody else I have ever heard using the term is the people that did not participate in the polls, not the ones that did not vote. The ones that didn't vote are the stupid majority imho.

[stconquest]

54 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Really? So just because you define the silent majority that way that makes it the right definition? And you call ME stupid. Fuck, this whole conversation was ironic from the beginning, but I did not expect it to go this far . Fyi the silent majority as defined by everybody else I have ever heard using the term is the people that did not participate in the polls, not the ones that did not vote. The ones that didn't vote are the stupid majority imho.

One last time:

 

Since there is not a clear definition for the term silent majority, I included a logical one preceding my argument as to not create confusion.  You are confused still.  What can I say?

 

You provided no clear definition of the term and assume there is one.  Where is this HUGE silent majority for Trump?  Clinton got more votes.

 

Do I laugh here or something? 

 

[Albatross]

I see some people haven't changed at all in my absence.

 

Anyways, this is news how? Bev Harris (and more) have been showing us just how rigged the systems are and how vulnerable they are. There have been hundreds of stories of voter fraud and the media/government covered it up, just like they did by covering up illegal voting by illegal immigrants.

 

This country has been in the shitter for a long time and it's time to drain the swamp and MAGA.

 

On 11/9/2016 at 2:07 AM, NoGravityPanda said:

Ummmm 

Why do they use voting machines again?

 

 

Precisely for this reason. lol

 

Though Hillary/DNC showed how paper ballots aren't very effective to ensure it isn't rigged (you know, because they sent thousands of them away).

[FakezZ]

1 hour ago, stconquest said:

One last time:

 

Since there is not a clear definition for the term silent majority, I included a logical one preceding my argument as to not create confusion.  You are confused still.  What can I say?

 

You provided no clear definition of the term and assume there is one.  Where is this HUGE silent majority for Trump?  Clinton got more votes.

 

Do I laugh here or something? 

 

FFS is a Google search too much for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority 
 

Quote

The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly.

 

[stconquest]

28 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

FFS is a Google search too much for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority 
 

The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly.

So, we are here again...

 

What do you call 45% of the voting public that does not vote?

 

Mi kaneis pou ksepis.  Sta telefteia, tha eise vlakas.

 

My Greek is terrible, but... it will be true.  Maybe writing it is bad greek will pound it into your head.  BTW, I did go to that wiki page before my last post.  You're a fucking tool.  Like a fish.  DAF.

 

You prove yourself wrong and you will post again, like an idiot would.

 

 

1.  You post to mock a prediction I made touting that now that the election is over I should feel dumb, even though my prediction was accurate.  Do you understand that?  I predicted correctly.

 

2.  I ignore your stupidity to let you have some fun and refrain from correcting you directly.

 

3.  Another member posts and I effectively confirm his/her deduction.

 

4.  Your EGO is damaged and start quoting me.  Every time you quote, you feel dumber.  Every time you feel dumber, you need to prove I am dumb.  Well, I am dumb, this is a fact.

 

I am done with you.
 

[FakezZ]

29 minutes ago, stconquest said:

So, we are here again...

 

What do you call 45% of the voting public that does not vote?

 

Mi kaneis pou ksepis.  Sta telefteia, tha eise vlakas.

 

My Greek is terrible, but... it will be true.  Maybe writing it is bad greek will pound it into your head.  BTW, I did go to that wiki page before my last post.  You're a fucking tool.  Like a fish.  DAF.

 

You prove yourself wrong and you will post again, like an idiot would.

 

 

1.  You post to mock a prediction I made touting that now that the election is over I should feel dumb, even though my prediction was accurate.  Do you understand that?  I predicted correctly.

 

2.  I ignore your stupidity to let you have some fun and refrain from correcting you directly.

 

3.  Another member posts and I effectively confirm his/her deduction.

 

4.  Your EGO is damaged and start quoting me.  Every time you quote, you feel dumber.  Every time you feel dumber, you need to prove I am dumb.  Well, I am dumb, this is a fact.

 

I am done with you.
 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you did make my day in the end just as I expected. So now that you have completely lost the argument you fall back to personal attacks and even trying to offend me in my native language. Hahahaha know that I am not that easily offended. You can say whatever you want, but my point still stands and you have completely lost this. What I call the 45% that didn't vote? GUESS WHAT? People that did not vote. It is stated clearly in the link AND quote I provided what the silent majority is and you still try to defend what you wrote by calling me stupid, just like a child would. Plus your prediction was also completely wrong. Maybe you should learn to accept defeat and move on before you learn definitions and Greek... My ego is damaged? How? My ego could not be better after winning the argument AND having you resort to personal insults. You could not make my case any better.

[stconquest]

Wow.

[tlink]

40 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

FFS is a Google search too much for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority 
 

 

to be fair voting is a form of expressing your opinion, the term is not really generally accepted and vague to say the least. also its wikipedia so its biased. 

 

Quote

silent majoritynoun 

 

a large number of people who have not expressed an opinion about something

http://www.webcitation.org/5wg4Jw9lc

 

 

this is literally the source wikipedia used so the text you quoted is clearly not the definition. 

 

the text is glitching so ignore the stripe trough, its broken.

[FakezZ]

34 minutes ago, tlink said:

to be fair voting is a form of expressing your opinion, the term is not really generally accepted and vague to say the least. also its wikipedia so its biased. 

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5wg4Jw9lc

 

 

this is literally the source wikipedia used so the text you quoted is clearly not the definition. 

 

the text is glitching so ignore the stripe trough, its broken.

Oh come on I am so over this "wikipedia is not to be trusted" bullshit. Look at the bottom where the sources are provided. No it is not the definition but it is the widely accepted meaning of the term. Saying that ones personal way of interpreting this is right over the meaning it has to the majority is beyond stupid. Voting is not expressing your opinion because it is anonymous. Expressing your opinion is actually saying that ME as John support Harambe or whoever for president.

[tlink]

25 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Oh come on I am so over this "wikipedia is not to be trusted" bullshit. Look at the bottom where the sources are provided. No it is not the definition but it is the widely accepted meaning of the term. Saying that ones personal way of interpreting this is right over the meaning it has to the majority is beyond stupid. Voting is not expressing your opinion because it is anonymous. Expressing your opinion is actually saying that ME as John support Harambe or whoever for president.

poll's are anonymous too, its not like every person they use openly proclaims their support with their name written under it. and i didn't say wikipedia cant be trusted, i said its a bad and often biased source. you can rely on its sources, but not in wikipedia itself. and their source is disagreeing with what you quoted so i guess my point on that was fair. they literally misquoted their own source.

[FakezZ]

Just now, tlink said:

poll's are anonymous too, its not like every person they use openly proclaims their support with their name written under it. and i didn't say wikipedia cant be trusted, i said its a bad and often biased source. you can rely on its sources, but not in wikipedia itself. and their source is disagreeing with what you quoted so i guess my point on that was fair. they literally misquoted their own source.

Participating in polls is not anonymous. Anonymous is if noone knows who you support, whether that is 1 person or a million. Also can you show me where they misquoted their source?  Because no voting is anonymous, therefore not a means of EXPRESSING your opinion.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, FakezZ said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you did make my day in the end just as I expected. So now that you have completely lost the argument you fall back to personal attacks and even trying to offend me in my native language. Hahahaha know that I am not that easily offended. You can say whatever you want, but my point still stands and you have completely lost this. What I call the 45% that didn't vote? GUESS WHAT? People that did not vote. It is stated clearly in the link AND quote I provided what the silent majority is and you still try to defend what you wrote by calling me stupid, just like a child would. Plus your prediction was also completely wrong. Maybe you should learn to accept defeat and move on before you learn definitions and Greek... My ego is damaged? How? My ego could not be better after winning the argument AND having you resort to personal insults. You could not make my case any better.

M8... He's still right. 45% of people who did not express their opinion, by your own definition, is a silent majority. 

 

This thread man. 

[tlink]

21 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Participating in polls is not anonymous. Anonymous is if noone knows who you support, whether that is 1 person or a million. Also can you show me where they misquoted their source?  Because no voting is anonymous, therefore not a means of EXPRESSING your opinion.

anonymous is not when noone knows who you support, anonymous is when you express your preferences but nobody knows who you are. thats a huge difference. a poll often is just as anonymous as national voting is. and again, the defintion you quoted is wrong because wikipedia quoted it wrong.

"a large number of people who have not expressed an opinion about something" voting is expressing your opinion anonymously. the people who did not vote are the silent majority.

[PRTI]

1 hour ago, tlink said:

to be fair voting is a form of expressing your opinion, the term is not really generally accepted and vague to say the least. also its wikipedia so its biased. 

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5wg4Jw9lc

 

 

this is literally the source wikipedia used so the text you quoted is clearly not the definition. 

 

the text is glitching so ignore the stripe trough, its broken.

to be fair voting is a form for elections to be rigged and for the least capable people to win and start WW3 (today)