Potential for large-scale insurrection in the United States post-election?
- Thread starter HighSpeed_LowDrag
- Start date
- Status
Samseau said:
Brexit gave me pause to think that rigging an election can be a dicey and difficult proposition. It's not like you can tally all the votes, change the outcome and then declare victory. You have to play it incredibly smart because much of the rigging takes place while the counting is in progress, so if you rig too hard you might risk making the winning margin seem ridiculous and unbelievable.
This is what I believe happened with Brexit. I think they took their best guess about precisely how much they had to skew the vote to win, and in the end they simply underestimated the swing towards Brexit and were pipped at the line.
No doubt Hillary's team are facing a similar dilemma. Rig a little and risk a loss, or rig a lot and risk losing all legitimacy.
Leonard D Neubache said:
In this election the swing states need to be watched very closely..more than ever. Those are the weak points where the most fuckery can take place. Rigging won't be national they will probably try to bump a few swing states in favor of Hillary through local state connections and bribery. If it comes down to a dead heat then things will get very shady.
When Obama was mocking Trump about the possibility of rigged elections you'll notice Obama addressed the public like they were stupid and didn't know how elections worked. Obama claims that rigging can't happen at the federal/national level. No shit. That's why most of the actual rigging happens at the swing state and even specific county level.
Any competent campaign advisor has swing state counties carefully mapped out and they know generally what the sentiment is and what hot spots to watch for. If they know specific counties that will swing a certain way then they can go down to the very local municipality level politics to corrupt those officials in charge of those areas.
It's beating a dead horse but most likely the U.S. has already been through a rigged election. The most notable was the Florida debacle which put W in charge. Very shady business and it's definitely something the neocon establishment will or has done before.
Rigged elections? Here's an interesting bit of information: http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
I am doubtful of "insurrection", but for the first time in my life, I can see a case for civil war.
I don't think it likely, just possible.
The reasons are overall declining standards of living, a general malaise, and a media that has a habit of intentionally inciting civil unrest, and nowadays even terrorism, as a pretext for change. Then one day they're going to incite something they can't control. It will go on one-sided for a long time, until a small and well-armed faction of the other decides that it has had enough, and engages.
The trigger could be a Venezuela-style economic meltdown. Which, ultimately, is inevitable. Followed by an inflammatory media blitz encouraging certain classes of people to blame other classes of people.
I suspect this scenario has already been foreseen, and is one reason for a renewed push for, ultimately, comprehensive gun control.
I don't think it likely, just possible.
The reasons are overall declining standards of living, a general malaise, and a media that has a habit of intentionally inciting civil unrest, and nowadays even terrorism, as a pretext for change. Then one day they're going to incite something they can't control. It will go on one-sided for a long time, until a small and well-armed faction of the other decides that it has had enough, and engages.
The trigger could be a Venezuela-style economic meltdown. Which, ultimately, is inevitable. Followed by an inflammatory media blitz encouraging certain classes of people to blame other classes of people.
I suspect this scenario has already been foreseen, and is one reason for a renewed push for, ultimately, comprehensive gun control.
chicane said:
"Our polling system is completely above board!"
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_b7d2b535-47d1-5a62-bfe1-bde2992ae6b3.html
"Oh. You want to check..? Umm..... no."
Choice quotes:
"Fuck off. We're not giving you access to the evidence. Exit poll? Oh... umm... so glad you're keeping a watchful eye out." :tard:
debeguiled said:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sorry'. I'm speaking to a stranger on the Internet, of course I'm not as 'sorry' as I would be if I ran over my neighbour's dog.
It's a figure of speech, and I can see why you think I might not actually be 'sorry'. It was meant in a sort of 'I regret to tell you this but..' way, but putting it like that my come across as extremely condescending.
Anyway, I've extremely over-analysed this.
kaotic said:
it's much easier to have a defeatist attitude when the result is effectively out of your hands. I'd would love, absolutely love, Trump to win; but there's almost nothing I can do to help this happen.
With a hot girl, I know that the result is purely down to me, it's on me if it goes wrong. I guess I'm not confident in the general population to vote for the best candidate for President.
There's a quote that says something along the lines of 'Scratch the skin of a cynic, and you'll find a disappointed idealist'. I think this is what is causing my cynicism. There's been so many times I've been disappointed politically (failure of UKIP to win many seats in the General Election, gay marriage, feminist shit, tranny shit) that I find it hard to believe something good will actually happen.
Samseau said:
Those were the odds the day of the referendum. A fairer equivalency would be with the presidential odds very close to polling day.
How are polls done in America? In the UK there is a systematic underestimate of the conservative (old) vote, presumably because less of them are online or are signed up to phone polls.
It's easy to hope that Trump will swoop in, win against whatever odds he's up against and lead a revival of the can-do America of yesteryear. But hope is the mantle of the useful idiots on the left.
Cheer Trump. Meanwhile, make sure that you yourself embody the change you want to see. If every Trump supporter spoke their mind then political correctness would be gone tomorrow.
He might win. He might not. It shouldn't alter what you plan to do today, tomorrow and the day after.
Cheer Trump. Meanwhile, make sure that you yourself embody the change you want to see. If every Trump supporter spoke their mind then political correctness would be gone tomorrow.
He might win. He might not. It shouldn't alter what you plan to do today, tomorrow and the day after.
Orson
Kingfisher
Yes, I agree. Let me expand on our agreement.
Insurrection is unlikely because of the lack of organization for use of force to effect and sustain legal separation.
The sort of stuff Tea Partiers and so-called "militia" types indulged in during Obama's first term would need to come to a simmering boil - ie, on the edge of becoming mainstream, not just in isolated fever swamps and rural gun-toting guerrilla wanna-be's, but in the suburbs too.
Organization and communication - probably much of it secret communication.
On the more optimistic side, I believe a sufficiently well-organized effort would not be "put down" by fellow Americans in the military (eg, national guard). This means the state's governor would have to be co-opted into cooperation or at least tolerance of the radical and rebellious action.
Remember, under Obama, enormous amounts of ammunition were bought up to drive the price up and make it scarce. No one seems to tell us where it's gone! Who knows if some newly militarized arm of the federal government would meet the threat outright - and try to defeat a rebellion?
Insurrection is unlikely because of the lack of organization for use of force to effect and sustain legal separation.
The sort of stuff Tea Partiers and so-called "militia" types indulged in during Obama's first term would need to come to a simmering boil - ie, on the edge of becoming mainstream, not just in isolated fever swamps and rural gun-toting guerrilla wanna-be's, but in the suburbs too.
Organization and communication - probably much of it secret communication.
On the more optimistic side, I believe a sufficiently well-organized effort would not be "put down" by fellow Americans in the military (eg, national guard). This means the state's governor would have to be co-opted into cooperation or at least tolerance of the radical and rebellious action.
Remember, under Obama, enormous amounts of ammunition were bought up to drive the price up and make it scarce. No one seems to tell us where it's gone! Who knows if some newly militarized arm of the federal government would meet the threat outright - and try to defeat a rebellion?
Kalkin said:
- Status