Comment by AvenueIngres | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AvenueIngres | Hacker News Reader

>Trump won't have trouble finding support for his claim of a "rigged" election

Trump won't have trouble with getting away saying that this election is rigged because we know it is.

Anyone with a bit of a CS background knows that electronic voting machines is a stupid idea, that was bound to be implemented by either corrupt or crappy consulting firms.

They provide literally no value over conventional vote counting, this is a textbook case of "better is good's enemy". I personally don't feel comfortable casting my vote in a literal black box. And if you had any doubts the political parties that makes up this country are ethical here is a couple links you should check:

[0] - Project Veritas: DNC execs and shadow consultants conspiring mass voter fraud logistics on tape - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

[1] - Again. This same time the higher-up are caught on tape in pretty sketchy stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY - funny that the boss who fired the "black-ops" employees of [0] ended up on tape as well.

[2] - John Podesta emails - ""US not a democracy" - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756

[3] - "Trump: WikiLeaks Shows How Clinton Campaign Rigged The Polls By Over-Sampling Democrats" - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/24/trump_wiki...

[4] - See the attached document about oversampling polls: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

[5] - Found this court testimony of a software developer who allegedly worked on the voting machines used in state elections - I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this video, see for yourself if you find that credible or not - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmsaDS_FwY

edit: I have no problem with a rain fire of downvotes, but perhaps you can take a little time to oppose actual arguments.

I was willing to give your post a fair shake because I generally respect all HN posters, and because you included citations. Out of convenience, I skipped the videos and went straight for the emails.

Podesta did not say "US not a democracy". That was a forward he received about a study by Princeton. There's a solid academic debate to be had on the nature of democracy and representation. I don't see how this is somehow malicious or cynical on Podesta's part. I would hope that people involved with politics have some clue about what political scientists are saying.

Additionally, oversampling is a common polling technique[0]. I don't see how using oversampling for their internal polls means that Podesta forced other polls to be conducted in the exact same manner. To claim that multiple polls by separate organizations are rigged, you need much, much stronger evidence.

I'm also not sure that a stump speech by an opponent ever rises to the level of evidence.

Even if I accept all of your claims on face value, they don't add up to "we know this election is rigged".

After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. I can tell from your two other comments that you're not just attacking, but your first post comes across as overly partisan (only accusations against Ds, citing Trump as evidence), so your larger point becomes muddled.

I'm still not totally certain whether you think this a problem with Ds or both major parties or an inherent problem to a party based system or something else entirely. At the end of the day, I think we probably agree. "The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people." If that was your original comment, I think the upvotes would be rolling in.

Finally, complaining about downvotes tends to make the problem worse.

[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/s...

After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith.

Well, that's pretty convenient isn't it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith either, so I'm going to ignore everything you're saying.

Help me understand where I went wrong.

As I see it, I did not ignore everything GP said. I read all of their original statements, over half of the evidence, and their 2 additional comments. I admitted that I did not have 30 minutes to watch the videos at first. I explained why my reading of the rest of their comments made me less inclined to spend 30 minutes watching videos. GP seemed confused about HN's reaction, so I attempted to explain my thought process.

Which part of my comment is in bad faith? If I did not disregard all of GP, why should all of my comment be disregarded?

P.S. I did end up watching most of the videos when I had time. I'm still not totally convinced, and since they are entirely about D's, it doesn't help GP seem less partisan.

There's a lot of editing, and I tend to be skeptical of what was edited out (like when ACORN was 'exposed'). Were these people led in a certain direction? Are some of the comments made by someone other than who they're attributed to? A lot of the time you can't see the person speaking.

But, a lot of the commentary in the videos is quite troubling, infuriating even. Given that there appears to be admission of crimes across multiple jurisdictions, why has there not been further prosecution? Especially since some of the allegations occur in majority R states, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to prove D's are cheats.

Both parties are cheats. I think GP agrees, it just didn't come across that way at first.

John Podesta emails - ""US not a democracy" - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756

For receipt of this message to reflect in any way on Podesta, you need to establish a pattern of communication and reliance on the advice of the sender.

Imagine you think this reply to you is really stupid. Does that stupid then automatically reflect back on you?

You are missing the point and mistaking my comment for a partisan one (though I can understand why). My point isn't that Podesta is nice or evil. Only that the people making the political structure of the US parties (here the Democratic party) are self-aware and cynical about the current situation. I agree that in a vacuum this email alone does not tell you much. You could very well argue that this is not an admission of guilt from Podesta. And that's fine.

However: 1/ the sender isn't a nobody. 2/ there are an amount of other elements that makes it highly unlikely that somehow one of the most influential back office advisor of the Democratic party isn't aware of the very unethical crap that is going on the field.

The Princeton study linked in the email is about the influence that money has in politics, not about unethical crap in the field. So it probably isn't a good link if that is the argument you are making.

hacker news is voting up a comment where its primary source is a video by James O'Keefe, what a sad day this is.

Actually, my comment is (well) below zero so you can have a nice day! You can perhaps make a little effort and judge the videos on its own merits rather than using its author as a red-herring to disqualify further discussion on the matter.

In addition to that, if you took the time to read this (short) comment you would have noticed that those sources I am using are only there to further my point that political parties are unethical and that one party dominating demographics of the intellectual class mechanically sees its power of nuisance increase tremendously. The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people.

They have no regards for this and the emails show how cynical they are about it.

Why attack the investigative journalist? The information is in video form. Ignore his interpretation if you feel the journalist isn't any good, that doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com