Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11, @04:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the glass-half-full-or-half-empty dept.

According to a poll conducted by two academic authors and published by The Washington Post, 52 percent of Republicans said they would back a postponement of the next election if Trump called for it.

If Trump and congressional Republicans proposed postponing the election to ensure only eligible citizens could vote, support from Republicans rises to 56 percent.

Pollsters found 47 percent of Republicans think Trump won the popular vote.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346000-poll-about-half-of-republicans-would-back-postponing-2020-election-if-trump


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday August 11, @04:55AM (69 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday August 11, @04:55AM (#552122)

    Sounds like the old "drinking more than 3 cups of coffee a day adds 10 years to your life" vs "drinking coffee increases your risk of whatever cancer".

    Junk studies are junk studies, I can't buy more than 10% would back skipping an election for a popular prez. Trump may be a lot of things, but popular he ain't.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Friday August 11, @04:59AM (7 children)

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @04:59AM (#552125) Journal

      The article I read is a little less misleading than this headline suggests.

      The poll asked if people would propose delaying the elections if Pres said that it was the only way to ensure that only eligible American citizens voted.

      Here's the story that the Washington Post is running with:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.f688b1c78602 [washingtonpost.com]

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:42PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:42PM (#552262)

        In my timeline, President Clinton suspended the 2020 elections after the riots in 2018 and 2019. She was still executive commander in February 2025 when the existing attempt at a global human civilization decided to promptly destroy itself.

        The elections being suspended was one detail that I was honestly not sure would happen on this alternate approach to that Stein's gate. However, it looks like things are playing out as though there is some eerie correspondence between timelines that might otherwise appear very different yet are certain to meet the same major catastrophe.

        History does not care whether it was President Trump or President Clinton who suspended the 2020 elections after the riots. History does not care whether it was President Trump or President Clinton who ordered the CDC to activate the FEMA concentration camps, ostensibly in response to the epidemic. History also does not care whether it was Clinton or Trump who used the FEMA camps more for political prisoners than in any kind of attempt to quarantine of the epidemic. Some historians do, but I do not think they have comprehended Dr. Stein's theory, so they focus too much on which personalities it happened to be on this date or that date.

        UNLESS

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:44PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:44PM (#552300)

          There are two kinds of Trump voters/fans:

          Billionaires, and idiots.

          Trump voters, just check your bank balance to determine which category you fall into.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:11PM (4 children)

            If you genuinely believe that, plan on losing the next election as well.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:37PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:37PM (#552364)

              Not GP, but for what it's worth, the Democrats do seem to be on a path to lose the next election. I hoped that losing to a candidate like trump would be a wake up call that many Americans are deeply unhappy with the status quo. But judging from the choices that the party leaders have made since the election, they seem to be sticking pretty hard to the status quo. I wouldn't be surprised by another uncharismatic, pro-wealthy, candidate for the next election. Plutocracy über alles!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:02PM (#552426)

                I changed sides from D to R just to keep Cliton out.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:03PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:03PM (#552429)

                Precisely. The Democrats have been Republicans-lite since Clinton, (mis)guided by some unholy misbegotten idea of false compromise. We have not had an ally of the people in office since before Reagan, and we have had nothing but enemies of the people, especially poor ones, in office since Clinton's second term. The one-two punch of NAFTA and so-called "welfare reform" threw the lower quintile of the US under the bus for good.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:28AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:28AM (#552660)

              There are two kinds of Trump voters/fans:

              Billionaires, and idiots. And Teh Mighty Buzzard.

              There, FTFY. Can we haz next election neow?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:00AM (60 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:00AM (#552126)

      By pure numbers, no, but he's got a cadre of hardcore supporters who would, indeed, let him get away with shooting a man on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight. Someone doesn't need to be widely popular to succeed, just deeply popular, if that makes sense.

      People don't seem to understand how badly degenerate the American electorate has become since the Nixon era. It's not a popular thing to say, but I believe this country was doomed when Ford pardoned Nixon, more than a decade before I was born, and it's just that anything as big as the US has very long death rattles.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @05:27AM (58 children)

        Agreed again, mostly. Twice in a week, whodathunkit?

        The mostly part is that Tricky Dick may have opened the gate but Slick Willie was the one who drug us all through and into the mud. The Lewinski shenanigans and lies thereafter pretty much destroyed any vain hopes of dignity or truthfulness from the office when they were forgiven by first the media then the voters. Nobody but Ford forgave Dick. Over half the country forgave Clinton and that made the flagrant flaunting of the law by Bush, Obama, and now Trump possible. People genuinely don't give even half a shit anymore as long as their side is in power.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday August 11, @05:37AM (28 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday August 11, @05:37AM (#552136)

          Exactly what law did Clinton break?

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday August 11, @05:40AM (27 children)

            by Snotnose (1623) on Friday August 11, @05:40AM (#552137)

            He lied under oath.

            • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:40AM (9 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:40AM (#552164)

              It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath. Basic principle of the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of of the not Republican contards who seem to not understand what America is, what it stands for, and why it could have been an example to the world. But, you had to go and elect Berlusconi, didn't you? Trump cannot lie under oath, because he is incapable of knowing what an oath is. He cannot lie under oath, or any where else, because he has no idea what truth is. Trump is so dumb, that if the leader of North Korea trolled him, Trump would fall for it, and has fallen for it. So take your "Clinton" stuff and stuff it up your ass, because the sheer weight of the fake newsiness of it might just protect you from a nuclear blast. Although, I doubt it.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:00AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:00AM (#552174)

                >It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath.

                Fuck, is that just some of the most stupid logic I've ever seen in my entire life. Just fucking shut up, you incredible idiot. You don't deserve to speak considering how dumb your opinions are.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11, @02:00PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:00PM (#552274) Journal

                  Now, now, now - don't try to censor the poor unfortunate learning impaired bobble head. Let him talk. Maybe we can lure him down the road to the hog farm, and he can sweet talk the old sows with his free speech. Hell, we can promise him tons of bacon, if he'll just jump into the back of the pickup. I don't suppose he'll ever find his way home. Besides, why would he leave? All those conversational partners, all on his level!

                  --
                  #Hillarygropedme
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:46AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:46AM (#552663)

                  Fuck, is that just some of the most stupid logic I've ever seen in my entire life. Just fucking shut up, you incredible idiot. You don't deserve to speak considering how dumb your opinions are.

                  How could you possibly know this? Evidently sarcasm and satire fly right by you undetected. Any call me stupid? And if this really is the "most stupid logic" you've ever seen, you must be rather young, and stupid. And I am in South Carolina, there is a law now that says you cannot tell me to shut up. So you shut up, you polymorphously perverse endocrinite!

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday August 11, @10:33AM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @10:33AM (#552226) Journal

                It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath.

                No, perjury remains a felony. There is no legal exemption for people who have enemies.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @03:56PM (4 children)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @03:56PM (#552380) Journal

                  No, perjury remains a felony. There is no legal exemption for people who have enemies.

                  Unless you consider being found not-guilty an exemption...

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11, @08:00PM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @08:00PM (#552542) Journal

                    Unless you consider being found not-guilty an exemption...

                    I do not. Just because Clinton's allies in Congress were sufficiently numerous to prevent Clinton's conviction of the crime by Congress doesn't mean that he didn't commit the crime. As it turns, he had to pay a $90,000 fine and lost his Arkansas law license for five years for committing perjury in court (but agreeing to a lesser civil penalty).

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:39PM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:39PM (#552563)

                      So you'll 100% support Trump's impeachment whether he's found guilty or not? I mean he's got all his allies in Congress ready to keep this crazy train rolling.

                      What's good for the goose amirite?

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11, @11:19PM (1 child)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @11:19PM (#552631) Journal

                        So you'll 100% support Trump's impeachment whether he's found guilty or not?

                        For what?

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:32AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:32AM (#552661)

                          High Crimes and Misdemeanors? That is what the Constitution says. Why do you hate the Constitution, khallow?

            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (11 children)

              by Whoever (4524) on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (#552320)

              Did he? Or were Starr and his team simply incompetent and didn't ask the right question?

              Let's face it: Republicans never cared about any possible perjury: they were too busy getting upset about the sex in the Oval Office to care about anything else.

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:35PM (10 children)

                Yes, he did.

                I can't speak for everyone who was a Republican back then but what pissed me off back then was that we had a douchebag that would cheat on his wife occupying the highest office in the nation. Lying under oath was pretty much expected of anyone with character that disgraceful. It had absolutely nothing to do with "sex". He could have fucked Hillary up the butt while the Secret Service watched and jerked off and I wouldn't have cared but if he'd betray his own wife he'd damned sure betray me.

                --
                Save Ferris!
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:08PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:08PM (#552392)

                  How many wives has Trump cheated on?

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @04:29PM (2 children)

                    Doesn't matter now. All standards of character and decency were thrown right the fuck out the window the instant Clinton was allowed to get away with behavior like that.

                    --
                    Save Ferris!
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @04:51PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @04:51PM (#552420)

                      Clinton was the Democrats' Nixon. I remember being maybe 11 or 12 when that all went down (96? 97?) and hating him for it.

                      The fact remains, however, that Nixon's corruption and Ford's subsequent pardon are what lead to all this. This is not a matter of partisan politics; this is an attack, sustained for the last 41 years, on the very base of the country's institutions. Ford made the wrong call and plunged us all down the wrong leg of the trousers of time. Our timeline is badly damaged and there is no recovery in sight.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:34AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @12:34AM (#552662)

                      Doesn't matter now.

                      What The Murgatroid Booznado is trying to say, in answer to the question of how many of his wives had Trump cheated on, is: "All of them." Let's not even get started on the Pee-pee tape.

                • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday August 12, @02:05AM (5 children)

                  by Whoever (4524) on Saturday August 12, @02:05AM (#552695)

                  I can't speak for everyone who was a Republican back then but what pissed me off back then was that we had a douchebag that would cheat on his wife

                  You are the douchebag. Unless cheating on his wife actually affected his performance as President, then it was his private business. And just because you and a bunch of other narrow minded farts were upset about the sex doesn't mean that the cheating affected his performance as President.

                  As for the lying: let me suggest that you get a dictionary out and look up the word "is".

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @03:54PM (4 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @03:54PM (#552374) Journal

              He lied under oath.

              Nope, he was acquitted of those charges. [washingtonpost.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:03PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:03PM (#552467)

                Nothing in that article disputes the claim that he actually did lie under oath; it only says that he was acquitted, which is unsurprising because of course his political party would stand up for him. That's how things work, but it's obvious that he did lie.

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday August 11, @08:16PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @08:16PM (#552552) Journal

                He lied under oath.

                Nope, he was acquitted of those charges.

                That's an interesting state of mind you have there where "acquittal" means "didn't do it". There are plenty of examples where one can be acquitted of something and yet still have done the crime (for example, insufficient evidence, or based on evidence that was obtained illegally). Here, due to lying under oath, Clinton lost his law license for five years and had to pay a fine of $90,000. So I guess it did happen after all.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @08:48PM (1 child)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @08:48PM (#552567) Journal

                  That's an interesting state of mind you have there where "acquittal" means "didn't do it". There are plenty of examples where one can be acquitted of something and yet still have done the crime (for example, insufficient evidence, or based on evidence that was obtained illegally)

                  It's called being innocent until proven guilty...

                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday August 11, @11:21PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @11:21PM (#552632) Journal

                    It's called being innocent until proven guilty...

                    He was proven guilty to the point of paying a fine and losing his law license. He just didn't get convicted by the Senate.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 11, @01:50PM (11 children)

          by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @01:50PM (#552263) Homepage

          I do find it interesting that "politician lying about sex" = "OMG! Impeach him already!", while "politician lying about weapons of mass destruction, torture, and mass surveillance of Americans" = "Meh, whatever, let's not start a political witchhunt."

          The fact is that most of America's presidents have had mistresses. What changed with Bill Clinton was that suddenly everybody cared.

          --
          If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11, @02:01PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:01PM (#552275) Journal

            "let's not start a political witchhunt"

            But, I LIKE the smell of roasting politician in the morning!!

            --
            #Hillarygropedme
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @02:55PM (4 children)

            You've made the classical progtard mistake of confusing lying with being wrong. The two are barely even superficially similar and not remotely the same to any sentient being.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:06PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:06PM (#552470)

              Bush was not just wrong, but a massive liar who supported egregious violations of the highest law of the land. I don't see how anyone can claim that Bush was not a liar. Obama was also a massive liar and violated the Constitution on numerous occasions. It's clear that violating the Constitution should be a felony, but I doubt that will happen.

            • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 11, @07:43PM

              by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @07:43PM (#552530) Homepage

              None of what I mentioned among George W Bush's behaviors were honest mistakes.

              * The intel on Iraq wasn't just wrong, it was demonstrably wrong. It was so wrong that when Joe Wilson demonstrated it was wrong, one of the top people in the administration (we don't know exactly who, but we do know that the VP's chief of staff took the fall for them, which means probably the VP, but possibly Bush himself) illegally leaked classified information to end the career of his wife. The stuff the Bush administration was putting out bore no resemblance at all to what UN inspectors were finding. Colin Powell called it "bullshit". There was substantial doubt in Congress from folks like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. The foreign diplomats at the UN who heard Powell's speech thought it about as accurate as the kinds of things spouted off by the likes of Kim Jong Un and Mahmoud Ahmadinajad. The reason why the Bush administration went to war had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs, 9/11, Al Qaida, or anything else the Bush administration was talking about, and we know this because the pro-war faction of his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were calling for attacking Iraq back in 1998, and not once mentioned those motivations.

              * As for torture, I'm not sure what you're claiming Bush was mistaken about. He has admitted, on camera and in writing, to ordering it done. He has admitted that he knew it was illegal under international law, but claims he thought it would save lives. It was not a mistake - he did it very much on purpose.

              * As for the mass surveillance, again I have no idea how you think Bush might have done that by mistake. If you want to feel better about it, it's something that was and still is done with bipartisan support: Bill Clinton's administration started down that road, then Bush brought in John Poindexter to run what was called at the time "Total Information Awareness", then Obama quietly allowed it to continue throughout his 2 terms. I mean, are you trying to seriously argue "Whoopsie, I hired a bunch of people and had Congress budget a bunch of money for a project that took several years, and then when Congress defunded it I just renamed it and allowed it to continue"?

              --
              If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:42PM (#552564)

              You are so cute when you display your naivety! Oh wait, I meant ugly. Like poop.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @11:07PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @11:07PM (#552630)

              You've made the classic neoconvict mistake of confusing being wrong with not lying. The two are barely even superficially similar and not remotely the same to any sentient being. In other words, the Bush administration's flimsy WMD evidence wasn't just "being wrong", it was a deliberate misrepresentation of reality far more tortured than Clinton's convolutions over the definition of "is".

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11, @09:10PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @09:10PM (#552588) Journal

            I do find it interesting that "politician lying about sex" = "OMG! Impeach him already!", while "politician lying about weapons of mass destruction, torture, and mass surveillance of Americans" = "Meh, whatever, let's not start a political witchhunt."

            My view is that both Bush and Clinton lied. The key difference is that Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal. In addition, most of those lies were committed by plausibly deniable proxy through his subordinates. Clinton's adultery was not committed by subordinates so he didn't have access to that rhetorical dodge.

            The fact is that most of America's presidents have had mistresses. What changed with Bill Clinton was that suddenly everybody cared.

            And how many of those mistresses were known at the time to the voting public? A key difference between Clinton and Kennedy, another notorious womanizer, is that Clinton got sloppy and got caught while still in office. It's real easy to claim hypocrisy. But you have to consider what the public knew then, not what we know now. Further, US presidents have always been held to have a higher moral standard than the average person. Just because the average person might betray their wives doesn't mean that the public would agree that it is similarly fine for a US president to do so.

            Finally, consider the promiscuity of Clinton's adultery. We really only have one president, Kennedy who did something of similar degree. In each case, that shows a profound poor judgment on the part of the president that wasn't present in other presidents with mistresses.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday August 12, @12:12AM (2 children)

              by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @12:12AM (#552653) Homepage

              Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal.

              So Clinton engaged in illegal lies about legal activities, while Bush engaged in legal lies about activities so illegal that any signatory to the Geneva Conventions could put him on trial for them. I'll make a deal here: You get to throw Bill Clinton in jail for 5 years (the maximum federal penalty for perjury) while I get to send Bush to prison for life for his underlying crimes.

              And how many of those mistresses were known at the time to the voting public?

              Let's see: James Buchanan's relationship with William King (yes, a guy, he might well have been gay) was the subject of insults from Congressmen. James Garfield had lots of rumors (true) about him and at least 3 women. Woodrow Wilson was caught with both Mary Peck and Edith Galt to the point where it was cause for jokes during the campaign. Warren Harding had about 5 come forward during his presidency. Franklin Roosevelt's affairs were known to at least people in Washington. A lot of people suspected Dwight Eisenhower's secretary Kay Summersby - correctly as it turned out. JFK's dalliances with Marilyn Monroe and many others were well-known at the time. Lyndon Johnson bragged about his affairs. George H.W. Bush's relationship with Jennifer Fitzgerald was the subject of a news story in 1988 and remained at least rumor until it was confirmed in 2004.

              And that's just some of the better-known ones. Part of what was in play was that there was some degree of convention that reporters just wouldn't write about that kind of thing, just like they didn't report at all on FDR's polio.

              We really only have one president, Kennedy who did something of similar degree.

              I mentioned several others above: LBJ, Harding, and Garfield.

              --
              If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @01:51AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @01:51AM (#552687) Journal

                while Bush engaged in legal lies about activities so illegal that any signatory to the Geneva Conventions could put him on trial for them

                And those illegal actions were? Only one I can think of is torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war. Which apparently is still going on.

                Let's see: James Buchanan's relationship with William King (yes, a guy, he might well have been gay) was the subject of insults from Congressmen. James Garfield had lots of rumors (true) about him and at least 3 women. Woodrow Wilson was caught with both Mary Peck and Edith Galt to the point where it was cause for jokes during the campaign. Warren Harding had about 5 come forward during his presidency. Franklin Roosevelt's affairs were known to at least people in Washington. A lot of people suspected Dwight Eisenhower's secretary Kay Summersby - correctly as it turned out. JFK's dalliances with Marilyn Monroe and many others were well-known at the time. Lyndon Johnson bragged about his affairs. George H.W. Bush's relationship with Jennifer Fitzgerald was the subject of a news story in 1988 and remained at least rumor until it was confirmed in 2004.

                So in other words, Clinton's exposure was much more public than previous presidents as I mentioned earlier.

                • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday August 12, @02:51AM

                  by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @02:51AM (#552708) Homepage

                  And those illegal actions were? Only one I can think of is torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war. Which apparently is still going on.

                  1. Torture and mistreatment of POWs, as you mention right there. Specifically, waterboarding, which is a crime against humanity as defined by the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Far East. This one would be easy to prove in a court because George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and several other members of the Bush administration have freely admitted their involvement in uncoerced statements in books and TV appearances.

                  2. Aggression against Iraq, which is a crime against the peace, first defined at the Nuremburg Trials. Iraq never presented any kind of real threat to the US, the US knew that, and attacked anyways, basically because we could and we wanted their oil at a discount price. This one is harder to prove, but still a war crime.

                  Either one could very well put Bush in jail for life if he were ever tried for his actions. I doubt he will face trial, but that has more to do with the fact that he was protected by Obama than anything else.

                  --
                  If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 13, @04:31AM

              by Whoever (4524) on Sunday August 13, @04:31AM (#553115)

              My view is that both Bush and Clinton lied. The key difference is that Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal.

              No, the key difference is that Bush's lies got the USA into an unnecessary war, which has cost the USA trillions of dollars, the lives of thousands of US soldiers and the enmity of millions of people, not to mention the lives of millions of people in the middle east. But heck, his friends made lots of money from the war, so, who cares, right?

              If Clinton lied, then his lies had no consequences for the country. The fact that you are so concerned about them says volumes about you.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 11, @02:24PM (15 children)

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday August 11, @02:24PM (#552290)

          Your sig:

          Socialist: Someone who wants everything that you have. Except your job.

          Republican: Someone who wants to prevent you from ever obtaining the things your parents had, including your job, a living wage, and health care.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @02:56PM

            S'fine, I'm neither.

            --
            Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:07PM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:07PM (#552433)

            Yeah he's a libertarian with reactionary politics. Someone, I forgot who, told me a libertarian is a Republican who likes weed and/or buttsex, which got a laugh if nothing else... I don't think his reactionary politics are even all that principled; they're a natural outgrowth of his all-encompassing "FYGM" attitude, with little or no deep thought put into them.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:35PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:35PM (#552525)

              Yeah, you'll notice his outrage only really crops up when conservative types are being oppressed and he stays silent when any liberal type is oppressed. Disingenuous in the extreme, but at least his narcissism is currently pro-freedom.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @09:41PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @09:41PM (#552981) Journal

                Yeah, you'll notice his outrage only really crops up when conservative types are being oppressed and he stays silent when any liberal type is oppressed.

                It's supposed to be the other way around, amirite? It's normal human nature to identify with and care more about certain people than others. I certainly consider it overrated as a character flaw.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday August 11, @07:44PM (2 children)

            by TheRaven (270) on Friday August 11, @07:44PM (#552532) Journal
            He's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. They're the ones who think that oppression is being inefficiently handled by government and should be the responsibility of the private sector.
            --
            sudo mod me up
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:45PM (#552565)

              I don't have sudo access on the server :(

            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 13, @04:37AM

              by Whoever (4524) on Sunday August 13, @04:37AM (#553116)

              He is also ignorant.

              Has he never seen or heard all the socialist songs and publications that praise the value of labor (work)? The idea that socialists are afraid of work shows a remarkable lack of awareness of political views. It's the Republicans who aspire to not work.

              But then, it's so much easier to be an Internet blowhard if you really don't know what you are talking about, because then, facts don't get in the way of your arguments.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11, @11:37PM (7 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @11:37PM (#552637) Journal

            Republican: Someone who wants to prevent you from ever obtaining the things your parents had, including your job, a living wage, and health care.

            So what are you doing to deserve the things your parents had?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @04:53PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @04:53PM (#552895)

              Working more difficult jobs, or even the same ones, and getting jack shit for it.

              Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @06:26PM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @06:26PM (#552923) Journal

                Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

                I listen to people I respect. I don't respect anonymous accusers by default.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12, @08:27PM (2 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @08:27PM (#552951) Journal

                  Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

                  I listen to people I respect. I don't respect anonymous accusers by default.

                  We are trying to help, khallow. We know you do not respect anyone, this much is obviously not rebutted by your posts. But you are a moron. Ask for help. We are all here for you.

                  --
                  If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @08:47PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @08:47PM (#552962) Journal

                    We are trying to help, khallow.

                    I don't buy that anyone believes that.

                    We know you do not respect anyone

                    It is true that I don't respect several people here - you among them, but there's quite a few people I do respect. The people who put together SN and make it work every day earned my respect and my continued subscription. And there's a fair number of posters that I've come to respect because of their thoughtfulness, courtesy, or effort.

                    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12, @08:57PM

                      by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @08:57PM (#552968) Journal

                      Well, you're welcome, khallow!

                      --
                      If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 14, @01:36PM (1 child)

              by DannyB (5839) on Monday August 14, @01:36PM (#553641)

              I've worked my whole life as a software developer. I have a better than decent living. As good or better than my parents. I have little to complain about personally. I have a lot of average or somewhat nice "Keeping Up with the Joneses" things. I have two older but good condition autos. A mostly paid for house. Etc. I have lots of credit cards. I use them regularly for everything. Have no credit card debt at all. (eg, we pay them off, but earn tons of rewards)

              But I see many others who work their whole lives to struggle to get by with even the basics. Some have huge credit card debt. My perception is that Republican policies are constantly trying to attack these people and take away what little they have, or deny them from ever getting ahead. And it appears to be a consistent pattern, not an anomaly.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15, @03:16AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 15, @03:16AM (#554060) Journal

                My perception is that Republican policies are constantly trying to attack these people and take away what little they have, or deny them from ever getting ahead.

                I see plenty of policies from all over that do that. Republicans aren't special. My view is that the problem will go away on its own in 30 or so years (once most of the developing world reaches developed world status) and there just isn't much productive to be done about it right now except adapt to the present and wait the time. Maybe develop policies that encourage local business creation.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 13, @02:47AM

          by dry (223) on Sunday August 13, @02:47AM (#553074)

          What about Reagan illegally dealing arms with the Iranians right after they'd kidnapped American diplomats?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Friday August 11, @05:54AM

        by krishnoid (1156) on Friday August 11, @05:54AM (#552147)

        By pure numbers, no, but he's got a cadre of hardcore supporters who would, indeed, let him get away with shooting a man on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight.

        *A* man?

        Someone doesn't need to be widely popular to succeed, just deeply popular, if that makes sense.

        Makes perfect sense, when you consider it as a cult.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @05:02AM (16 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @05:02AM (#552127) Journal

    postponing the election to ensure only eligible citizens could vote, support from Republicans rises to 56 percent.

    So what are they going to do? are they doing any such move?

    Postponing any election is likely to be a bad idea. The backlash can be immense. No election = dictatorship and they all seem to have a finite date.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday August 11, @05:25AM (15 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @05:25AM (#552131) Journal

      There were people suggesting Obama could be kept around longer by some sort of similar hocus pocus, and Democrats were seriously recommending it. CNN even did a piece talking about assassinating Trump before the inauguration. (being careful to weasel word it).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udxnpxRzhQA [youtube.com]

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday August 11, @05:44AM (2 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Friday August 11, @05:44AM (#552141)

        Yep. Despite the wars, the drones, the surveillance, the espionage act persecutions, excusing torture, wall st., banksters, due process free execution of American citizens, and a slew of other things that aren't popping to mind, Obama is the Democrat Jesus. He could take a shit on the original Constitution and Democrats would be standing in line to lick it clean.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:47PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:47PM (#552566)

          Just want to chime in here, most liberal types I know don't much care for Obama.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11, @11:39PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @11:39PM (#552638) Journal
            Well, he's out of office now. Similar effect happened with Bush when he left office. Suddenly, people could admit that he was a bit stupid. I imagine there will be a fair number of people in four or eight years who will grudgingly admit that Trump probably would have been a better president, if someone had taken that damn cell phone away.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 11, @06:49AM (8 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @06:49AM (#552170) Journal

        Frojack, you have lost your edge! Your entire gravitas was injecting just enough uncertainty to pull of the doubt in the mind of the reasonable! But here, you have gone beyond the pale. "Four more years" was a cry of Republicans, after the Alzheimer President had served his second term. Suddenly, the Republicans regretted having introduced term limits when it looked like Franklin Delano Roosevelt was going to be president for life (as he was, and his VP was elected after him).
                So term limits are the only way Republicans can get into office, along with gerrymandering and minority voter suppression, and thus the idea that maybe we should suspend elections so the Republican can stay in office, since there will be no way that any Republican could ever hold that office after Trump, just as none could ever after "Silent Cal". Come on, frojack, just admit that it is over. If we are not "mini-nuked" by North Korea, there will not be a republican president for the next four decades, at least.

        --
        If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @07:56AM (2 children)

          by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @07:56AM (#552188) Journal

          Prisoners dilemma? ;)

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 11, @09:21AM (1 child)

            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @09:21AM (#552216) Journal

            Not even close. Prisoner's dilemma presupposes rational actors, if rather ignorant ones. No, what we have here is Republicans cutting of their nose to spite their face, or if allegory is too difficult for you (you do, as many conservatives are, seem to be a literal minded person), electing Trump even though they know he is not one of them and will bring fire and furry to the Republican party for generations. Especially the furry, grabbing them by the furry parts, if you know what I mean. My Gawd, the man is a perv.

            --
            If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday August 11, @02:29PM

              by DannyB (5839) on Friday August 11, @02:29PM (#552294)

              Speaking of rational actors, raise your hands if you didn't see it coming for Trump and Kim Dong to be having a Nuclear "tiny hands" measuring contest.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 11, @01:51PM (4 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @01:51PM (#552265) Journal

          If we are not "mini-nuked" by North Korea, there will not be a republican president for the next four decades, at least.

          That's what they said after Bush/Cheney, such a disaster they were. They said the same thing about Congress in the same context, after Obama won and the Democrats seized control of both houses. The Republican Party was in full meltdown then, and as a progressive I was overjoyed we had both elected the country's first black president and had taken all the reins of power back so we could undo the damage done by the Republicans.

          It turned out the Democrats were the same party as the Republicans after all, just a wing with a different marketing scheme, and that they absolutely shared the same goals: impoverishment of the American citizenry while stealing everything that isn't nailed down and most of what is nailed down.

          Now, here we are, with another Republican president. It will keep happening like that in a gyre of doom unless and until Americans get up off the couch, hop in their pickups, and converge on Washington, DC to do some redecorating.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @05:41PM (3 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @05:41PM (#552453) Journal

            If they're the same party why is Trump so busy "repealing" stuff?

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:15PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:15PM (#552476)

              They're different on numerous issues such as the environment (they're willing to take baby steps in the right direction while Republicans actively go in the wrong direction), the LGBT community, net neutrality, health care (willing to adopt old Republican proposals when they have a super majority), and so on. So they are different parties, but the Democratic party is, at this time, still evil.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 12, @11:04AM

                by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @11:04AM (#552825) Journal

                You yourself said it, "old Republican proposals" on healthcare. They somehow still failed to enforce net neutrality. LGBT community? I don't have anything against LGBT whatsoever and have no problem at all with them having the same rights as everyone else, but it is an extremely marginal issue about a very small fraction of the population. It's extremely important to members of the LGBT segment of the population, but of no consequence to anyone else. That's harsh, but it's true. It's only used as a wedge issue to try and prove that their policy outcomes are different from each other when they aren't. Except that stopped working because people largely stopped giving a shit about hating LGBT people because they have become too painfully aware that the system is totally broken for everyone. That's why they started in on all the trans- nonsense, because of course you gotta up the ante in the controversy porn.

                Please stop playing into the gyre of doom. If you allow the lizard people to direct your energy into hating your fellow countrymen with stupid empty labels like "Republican" or "Democrat" when you have infinitely more in common with any of them than with any of the lizard people, then you will have none left to deal with the lizard people who are the cause of all our woe.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 12, @10:55AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @10:55AM (#552823) Journal

              What are they repealing? Seems to me they have successfully avoided repealing. Funny, that.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @08:10AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @08:10AM (#552193) Journal

        And what will they do to prevent "non"-eligible people from voting?
        I'll guess they voted in 2016?

      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday August 11, @09:44AM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Friday August 11, @09:44AM (#552222)

        What a load of conspiratorial crap.

        Sounded like an Alex Jones wannabe.

        --
        The Trump Presidency, an attempt to make Nixon look respectable......
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:26PM (#552445)

        People on both sides were suggesting Dubya would/could/should do the same thing, in 2004 and 2008.
        People on both sides were suggesting Clinton would/could/should do the same thing, in 1996 and 2000.
        I wasn't paying attention to politics before that, but I'm sure it didn't start then.

        There's always a plentiful fringe of blackguards and paranoids, respectively cheering for their own man to seize more power or wailing that the despicable enemy is about to do so; this is the natural result of treating politics as a team sport.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:21AM (#552130)

    Let's keep it 100% here. The awareness of the typical american, of matters of politics and government organisation, is abysmal. Poll after poll show americans being hazy on who their representative is, who their senators are, and basically ignorant about the bill of rights.

    Remember when they tried citizens on the civics test they use for naturalisation? And the citizens were baffled, as often as not?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:44AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:44AM (#552142)

    Large chunks of both parties are extremely polarized. If you had polled those that identify specifically as 'democrat' in 2016 about whether they would support Obama delaying the elections, or whether they would support Obama creating laws allowing him to run for a third term - I think you would find at least as high levels of support. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Trump, Obama, or the tooth fairy could or would be able to actually do said things. This might be slightly interesting if Trump was sponsoring such polls. But no, this is two "academics" doing "research" to be "published" on WaPo. Some of you need a serious reality check.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:54AM (#552146)

      Repealing the 22nd Amendment would be required for any president to hold a 3rd term 'legally'. Having said that, given all the other laws that have been unconstitution and successfully passed with enforcement upheld by the supreme court, I would daresay if there was ever a time to test it, now would be that time, unless the next few years sees the Republicans gain a supermajority, at which point that would be a far better test of this and other needed tests of the legal boundaries of the US and what the constituency will tolerate and/or support.

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday August 11, @05:46AM (14 children)

    by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Friday August 11, @05:46AM (#552145)

    This story is basically the Daily Hate / Clickbait but whatever.

    1. Barring some major reveal of pervasive fraud I'd oppose suspending elections.

    2. There IS pervasive fraud, has been for a long time. Kennedy is probably the first POTUS elected on the margin of fraud, but probably not the last.

    3. We are regularly told THERE IS NO FRAUD and if you keep looking for it you are RAACCISSSSS!

    4. If you want to institute measures to prevent fraud, which as our better remind us does not exist, you are RAACISSSS!

    5. Every place we look for fraud we seem to find it. Voters registered in, and voting in, multiple states, illegals voting, dead people voting, people bussed across state lines to transfer votes from "safe" states to ones in play, polling place shenanigans, games with the voter registration systems, hacking attempts, you name it and there have been credible cases.

    All of which is a problem but the wrong problem. The problem is universal franchise democracy. It always devolves into the Have Nots voting to have their way with the less numerous Have's stuff, i..e Socialism. Every time.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @05:56AM (1 child)

      Would you like to borrow my sig?

      --
      Save Ferris!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:50PM (#552568)

        Nah, it got infested by stupid. Thanks for the offer though.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 11, @06:15AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @06:15AM (#552156) Homepage Journal

      I totally agree on what the problems are. Almost totally. It's like you said, except for the hacking: there is no hacking, that's #FAKENEWS. My Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (I call it the Fraud Commission) is going to say the same thing in its report next year. Which we already knew from the Pew report. It boils down to people voting who shouldn't be. People who should be in school, people who should be at work, people who should go back to Mexico or the state they came from. You're born in North Carolina, you vote in North Carolina. You bring your birth certificate, we check where you were born, that's where you get to vote. Unless you're supposed to be at work or in class. 🇺🇸

    • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:55AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:55AM (#552171)

      Daily Hate: I hate jmorris! I hate jmorris! I hate the Buzztard! I hate the Buzztard! I hate khallow! I really do not want to hate khallow, but I do! I hate Runaway, mostly 'cause he was abused when he was young, and has continued to be abused by Fox News. I hate jmorris, only because he is jmorris, and if ever he ceased to be jmorris, I would hate him all the same for having been jmorris. Time's up! Sorry, back to work. I am working on this really cool memo about the reverse discrimination I feel as a Google employee. I think it is really going to go over well.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 11, @05:03PM (5 children)

      by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @05:03PM (#552428) Homepage

      2. There IS pervasive fraud, has been for a long time. Kennedy is probably the first POTUS elected on the margin of fraud, but probably not the last.

      3. We are regularly told THERE IS NO FRAUD and if you keep looking for it you are RAACCISSSSS!

      What's your evidence? Surely, if there's been some sort of massive fraud going on that long, there's some kind of proof out there for it. A lot of that stuff's old enough that it's been declassified by now if that was how it happened.

      The reason you're told that there's no fraud is that there's about as much evidence of the existence of something like the alleged organized voter fraud as there is of the existence of God: A bunch of rumors and anecdotes, a few claims by people with much to gain if you believe them, and little-to-nothing of hard facts.

      --
      If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:13PM (4 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:13PM (#552436)

        He's right, there *is* pervasive fraud. It is called "gerrymandering."

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 11, @05:17PM (3 children)

          by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @05:17PM (#552441) Homepage

          But that's been going on since the days of Mr Elbridge Gerry, after which it was named back in 1810. It sounds like there's a different assertion on the table right now, with no evidence whatsoever.

          --
          If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:41PM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:41PM (#552452)

            That's the joke :)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:43PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:43PM (#552531)

              It is hilarious seeing uzzie proclaim his genius and then let a simple joke like that go wooshing over his head.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 13, @04:21AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday August 13, @04:21AM (#553109)

                In fairness, when your head's 2/3 beak and spends most of its time up a decomposing zebra's asshole, I imagine a *lot* would go over it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:41PM (#552529)

      I've now met enough people who actively lie to themselves and are able to convince themselves that reality is totally different than it is. I see the same thing with you, and apparently there is no solution without deep DEEP therapy.

      Stop pushing your twisted view of reality.

    • (Score: 2) by Tangaroa on Friday August 11, @09:17PM

      by Tangaroa (682) on Friday August 11, @09:17PM (#552590) Homepage

      My dad was union. They rigged the elections by identifying the people who didn't vote and stuffing the ballot boxes with fake votes in their names, then blackmailed the winners with the information that they did not win an honest vote and would take the blame if the news got out.

      The last time I went to the voting booth and got a glance at the voter rolls, about 70% of the registered voters were signed up to vote by mail. I suppose it doesn't matter who mails out the ballot. This vulnerability will not be fixed by requiring IDs for the people who vote in person.

(1) 2