US election fraud: Veritas Voter Fraud Compilation – #VoterFraudIsReal

Plus, this article  analyzing the HuffPo flip :

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.

QED

Edit:  fixed inaccurate description of link.

Advertisements

Guest Post by Juggernaut: How I learned to Love Donald Trump.

Life is much better with a variety of opinions.  Juggernaut, my young friend, certainly has a great man well thought out opinions.  Since I have been a bit away as of lately (a number of meat-space issues have kept me away for much too long), he has offered to share with us his opinions on the recent US election of God Emperor Trump, Kek be praised!

How I Learned to Love the Donald

by Juggernaut

My stance

I’m not inherently a liberal or a conservative.  I look at things objectively and look at evidence before making conclusions.  On this subject, many people like using data to support their own preconcieved conclusion.  I guess Im not good on the theatrics of politics.

Clinton is the ugly status quo we all hate and Trump is an alternative offering some improvements coupled with lots of troubling positions too.  Johnson was the lesser evil.

I was wrong.

Most thought Clinton would win, especially the left leaning media of course.  In my projection, I predicted 46 out of 50 states correctly: more accurate than most pundits.

I was wrong on Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Florida was a tossup and most didn’t think he  would win the other 3 states.  Three weeks ago, even his own supporters believed winning via Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire was more feasible.

Even him and his own supporters were prematurely calling it rigged.  He won all 4 of those states by a margin of ~2%.

My error was in assuming the rust belt was out of his reach because both Democrats and Republicans were blindly partisan.  I was half right.  Many Democrats only vote for charismatic candidates like Obama and the rust belt only leaned slightly blue to begin with.

Electoral College

Before the election, I had lamented the fact that only 15 states matter electorally while your vote doesn’t really matter in the other 35 states.  But in this election we saw 3 solid blue states turn red.  Millions of forgotten invisible rust belt workers have had their say, and that’s great. It’s what the EC was built for.  Really, there’s no perfect system.  Popular vote gives less populous regions a disadvantage, and EC gives an advantage to swing states.  No easy answers here.

Why Clinton lost.

I could name a number of bad decisions she made in her campaign:
She attacked Donald but never made a strong case for herself
“America is already great” = complacency.
Starting a weird anti-Russia obsession to court hawkish Republicans
Campaigning in solid-red states like Arizona
Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan, taking them for granted.
Picking Kaine as a running mate (he added nothing to the ticket)

Plus, lots of other baggage: scandals, Iraq, etc.

Why Donald won.

In the primaries, it was simple.  He had 17 opponents, and that meant he was able to win even if 60% of the party didn’t like him.  He didn’t have to debate any single candidate in depth, and in a crowded field, the loudest person gets the most attention.  Republicans were tired of Bush’s RINO/neo-con policies.  Also, they were tired of their polite establishment candidates like Romney and McCain losing.

Let’s make it simpler.  Charisma always wins.  McCain, Romney, Kerry, Dole, HW Bush, Mondale and Carter all fit in the same category.  Intelligent and qualified, but boring and tone-deaf.  Donald was by far the most charismatic.  Opponents don’t want to admit it but he got endless coverage due to the fact that he was entertaining and knew how to trigger emotions.

I care about logic and the issues but most voters vote on emotion.  Donald was by far superior in tapping into the emotions of the voters.  People were angry and felt the establishment was a joke, and he provided that.

Trump supporters are not monolithic

Biased media outlets wanted to paint a monolith of his supporters largely being racist rednecks, but really it’s a more complicated picture.

If I were to construct a pie-chart of his supporters, it would look something like this:
10% – racist / xenophobic
10% – isolationists / protectionist / rust-belt
20% – fiscal conservatives
20% – people who view Clinton as a greater evil
20% – partisan Republicans
20% – people who are angry at the establishment

Obama’s failings.

Much of this election result was due to Obama failure to communicate.  He was great at the motivational speeches, but a laid off factory worker with an almost-empty refridgerator and a daughter wearing the same pair of shoes for 5 years isn’t as optimistic.

Obama exists in a professorial Harvard bubble with some Chicago sensibilites, but the same sobriety that gives him a good temperment has resulted in him being too afraid to express condemnation and frustration where appropriate.  Donald is the anti-Obama.  Obama is cautious, business-casual, overly politically correct, mild-mannered.  Donald is brash, bold, loud, angry and blunt.

Trump is the establishment

Many of Trump’s supporters are echoing the same kind of naive optimism of Obama’s win in 2008.  Obama was a stock Democrat, not much different than Kerry in policy, but he convinced people via marketing that he represented change despite having conventional policies.

Trump was a billionaire political donor, friend of the Clintons, to begin with.  He already backpedaled on most of his hardlined positions last week.

In a way, he’s our first third paety president, but he appointed mostly establishments Republicans.  From his perspective its brilliant.  He can silence opposition.  If you work for an administration, its harder to criticise it.

Trump is not revolutionary

The only thing thats revolution is his rhetoric.  Its not unthinkable for America to elect Trump.  Hes a demogogue and second world countries are full of Trumps.

Fiscally, Hes a liberal Republican who likes taxes low, spending high and debt high.  On foreign policy, hes keeping most of the old guard in place.  On immigration and trade, hes different, but he backpedaled on that.

Anti establishment doesn’t exist

There will always be an establishment.  Anti establishmenr politicians only want to replace the current establishment with their own.  Certain groups of people will be favored and certain groups will be left out, and it will always be that way.

97% of Congressional incumbents were re-elected, and Congress holds most of the government’s power.

Trump’s moral character is condemnable, his anti intellectual populism is repugnant, but his ability to defy the odds, defy big money interests, galvanize millions and be a leader in that regard is admirable.  No matter how many asterisks we can place next to it, Trump is synonymous with success.

If his run, results in more people questioning our government and culture, it could be consequentially good.  But most other discussion will be theatrics.

Democrats don’t get it

They’re going to nominate a more progressive and more moralistic Democrat in 2020, make more “you dont care about ____ people” argument, and theyll lose anyway.

Donald will be endlessly parodied on SNL, he will become America’s most endearing but oafish cartoon character.  He’ll take the route of political convenience and offer purely cosmetic changes.

And americans will likely re elect him again in 2020 because he is a born leader.

CGPGrey: explaining problems with ‘First Past the Post’ and ‘Alternative Vote’

“First Past the Post” or “Winner Takes All”:

“The Alternative Vote”:

Ottawa 2010 Municipal Elections results

Well, the results are in.

Almost!

Some ward races were won by less than 100 votes, so recounts are very likely.

Still, there do appear to be a few new faces on the Ottawa City Council.  Not enough (in my never-humble-opinion), but some are better than none!  The results, as of now, are as follows:

Mayor:  Jim Watson

Ward races:

  1. Orleans:  Bob Monette
  2. Innes:  Rainer Bloess
  3. Barrhaven:  Jan Harder
  4. Kanata North:  Marianne Wilkinson
  5. West Carleton-March:  Eli El-Chantiry
  6. Kanata-Stittsville:  Shad Qadri
  7. Bay:  Mark Taylor
  8. College:  Rick Chiarelli
  9. Knoxdale-Merivale:  Keith Egli
  10. Gloucester-Southgate:  Diane Deans
  11. Beacon Hill-Cyrville:  Tim Tierney
  12. Rideau-Vanier:  Mathieu Fleury
  13. Rideau-Rockcliffe:  Peter Clark
  14. Somerset:  Diane Holmes
  15. Kitchissippi:  Katherine Hobbs
  16. River:  Maria McRae
  17. Capital:  David Chernushenko
  18. Alta Vista:  Peter Hume
  19. Cumberland:  Stephen Blais
  20. Osgoode:  Doug Thompson
  21. Rideau-Goulbourn:  Scott Moffat
  22. Gloucester-South Nepean:  Steve Desroches
  23. Kanata South:  Allan Hubley

…blogging has been light…

When I said that ‘blogging will be light’, I had not realized just HOW light it would be….

However, technical difficulties aside, I have started posting the replies to my questions which the Ottawa municipal candidates have been kind enough to send me.  I must admit I was pleasantly surprised just how many responses I received, as well as with how well many had answered…

I am still posting the answers (and ward by ward overviews of who’s running, their website (if I know it) and a link to the response to my questions), so more ‘stuff’ will be popping up, but if you’d like to check the site out, you can do so here.

In the meantime, I’ve been asked for the link to this interesting article by so many people I’ve mentioned it to, I’d better post it here for your entertainment!

Blogging will be light…

…as I am working to set up a new blog on which I will post the responses which I received from the Ottawa Municipal Elections 2010 candidates – responses to the questions I had sent them.

Why?

Because I have never seen this many people actively taking an active part in the democratic process of election – especially on the municipal level!  THIS IS AWESOME!

These people deserve all the help they can get in getting their message across:  especially the newcomers to the political world.

For those unfamiliar with the Ottawa municipal scene:  during the last election, the people of Ottawa had elected a maverick-of-a-mayor, a newcomer to the political scene, in order to ‘bring about change.  But, being the cautious folk we are, we had elected every single City Councilor who ran for re-election – the very crowd that had built the status quo and loved it!

Exactly….

This election, we are seeing a definite change:  at no time in my memory have so many ‘ordinary’ folk from all walks of life (read, not just ‘professional politicians’ and lawyers) and running both for the position of Mayor as well as for the City Council.

So many, in fact, they are getting ‘drowned out’!

With over a hundred people running, it is difficult for mainstream media to give us in-depth analysis of each candidate (provided their ‘impartial reporting’ would actually do more good than harm) – so, an pre-canned sound-bite here and there is about the best coverage most of the candidates are likely to get.  (CFRA is trying – but, there is only so much coverage one lone radio station can give.)

How is a three-second cookie-cutter sound-bite supposed to tell us who the different candidates are and what they stand for?

Well, if they were willing to put in the effort to run, the least I should do is to provide them an opportunity to differentiate themselves.  So, I emailed each and every one of the candidates which lists an email address my email interview questions.  Over 120 of them.

For those who do not, I posted the questions here – they are free to get them, fill out the questions and submit them to me.  Either, they can do so as a comment, or they can send me a comment with their email address and I’ll contact without publishing the comment with their private info.

Since the very first ‘full’ reply got most of the answers ‘perfectly right’, I fell uncomfortable about publishing the results as they come in:  the later- answerers would have the benefit of becoming ‘enlightened’ by this one particular set of answers (NOT from a front-runner – YET!).

So, instead, I will set up a page for the Mayoralty race and a separate page for each Ward, in which I’ll list all the candidates, their websites (provided they took less than 5 minutes on Google to find:  with 0ver 140 candidates….but if ANYONE knows a website link I missed, please let me know and I’ll add it), their response to my questions (I say ‘response’, because some of them are honest, well thought out answers while others range from very polite questions of their own to not so polite PFO’s from their underlings).

I may (or may not) also note official endorsements and ‘slates’.  But, as I am an Aspie (and therefore very slow at this because I tend to get sidetracked….I have the attention span of a gnat on antihistemines), I have already put well over a hundred hours to setting it up, so, as they say, we’ll see!

So, that is ‘coming soon’.

Until the construction is done, blogging here will be light…

Thank you for your patience.

Email interview for Ottawa Election Candidates 2010


The following set of questions will be emailed today to all the candidates who list an email – the rest can find it here, should they be interested.

If at least 10-15 of the candidates do respond, I will set up a separate blog at which I will post all the responses I receive (by Mayor/Ward#).

This election is likely to see many changes in the municipal political scene – and so it should be. Still, it can be confusing for the ‘regular voter’ to know who’s who and what their defining values are.

In order to help the voters identify which candidate stands for what, I have put together a few questions which I would appreciate if you would answer. In order to identify everyone’s stand on some of the issues which are important to the Ottawa taxpayers at this time, some of the questions are provocative, pointed and otherwise biased in order to highlight each candidate’s uniqueness.

If you would like to answer any or all of my questions (feel free to pick and choose), I will post each reply on a dedicated blog. It might not get a lot of traffic – but, then again, it might take off. All I ask is that the questions be answered by the candidate and not their political staff and that they be honest, direct and heartfelt.

(If some of the questions make you mad – please, say so: they are meant to! Which questions make you mad just may help voters identify with your core values! If none of the questions get you ‘hot under the collar’, then I have failed and I apologize.)

Part 1: tell us about yourself

1.1

Why did you decide to run for public office now – as opposed to another time?

1.2

Why did you decide to run for the Municipal level of government, as opposed to the Provincial or Federal?

1.3

What makes you the best candidate for this job?

1.4

What separates you from all the other candidates?

1.5

Whom do you admire and why?

Part 2: decision making

Each of the following questions will present you with 2 options: sometimes, these may be congruent, sometimes not. It does not matter. This section is meant to highlight, if elected, how much relative relevance you would give these considerations in YOUR decision making.

Dividing ten points between the two choices in each question, please indicate how many you would give to each of the two options presented (ensuring the sum adds up to 10).

Example: When considering a snack, how would you rate ‘healthy’ vs ‘convenient’?

Healthy __6___

Convenient __4___

(A snack can be both healthy and convenient – this just tells us, the voters, which quality you would consider more, and by how much.)

Please, feel free to comment as well.

2.1

To whom is the primary responsibility of the City Council?

City employees _______

Taxpayers _______

2.2

When introducing new initiatives (or evaluating existing ones), what should be the relative importance of these to each other?

‘Environmental good’ _____

Taxpayer burden _____

2.3

When introducing policies intended to change the behaviour of the citizens of Ottawa, how would you balance the following?

Advice of experts _____

Voter feedback _____

2.4

When motivating citizens to use public transit, how would you balance these two approaches?

Making it easier, more convenient and especially safer to use public transit _____

Introducing penalties/fees/traffic tie-ups to discourage the use of private vehicles _____

2.5

Who is responsible for the welfare of children?

Parents _____

Public officials (including all variety of school programs) _____

2.6

What is the relative importance of these?

Individual (including property) rights _____

‘Public good’ _____

2.7

What should be the relative focus of any government?

Providing services to citizens _____

Enabling citizens to provide for themselves _____

2.8

When implementing a policy that may not be popular, which is preferable?

Legislating behaviour _____

Permitting those citizens who wish to ‘opt in’ to do so, with no penalty to the rest _____

2.9

What is a better way to help people with ‘drug problems’?

Needle exchange/safe injection site programmes _____

0 tolerance of illegal drug users (including marijuana) _____

(I specify drug ‘users’, as opposed to ‘dealers’)

2.10

In policing, what is the relative importance of:

‘Public Good’ initiatives – such as ‘driver sobriety spot checks’ by police _____

Respecting the constitutional rights of citizens (random police checks illegal) _____

2.11

Who is entitled to decide the fate of trees?

The property owner (whose house may be getting damaged by the tree) _____

The community (as represented by City Officials) _____

2.12

Which is more harmful to the environment?

Raw Sewage _____

Carbon Dioxide _____

2.13

If ‘security’ and ‘freedom’ are in conflict, which should take precedence?

Security _____

Freedom _____

2.14

If a city official (such as a police officer or a by-law officer) is attempting to carry out an illegal order or to enforce an illegal law/by-law (one which contravenes the Canadian Constitution), what should be the reaction of the citizen?

Shut up and obey, like a good little slave _____

Place the city official under citizen’s arrest _____

2.15

Where do rights originate from (and thus reside with)?

Individual _____

Society _____

Part 3: Short and to the point

Please answer the following questions in 10 words or less.

3.1

What is the main purpose of government?

3.2

What is the main purpose of fines?

3.3

What is the proper role of by-laws?

3.4

Currently, the average salary (and benefits) of the City of Ottawa employee is roughly double the average salary (and benefits) of private sector employee (this average includes the high salaries of CEO’s and other executives – as shown in multiple studies). Under what conditions is this justifiable?

3.5

In many City of Ottawa departments, the workers and managers are members of the same labour union. Is this proper?

3.6

Should the City of Ottawa have departments which duplicate the services (and often undermine the policies) of Provincial and/or Federal departments?

3.7

Many businesses in Ottawa claim the amount of ‘red tape’ they have to go through simply to exist is excessive. Is this a problem?

3.8

Under what conditions is it justifiable for a government to financially subsidize one business, but not another?

3.9

Is ‘reverse discrimination’ also a form of discrimination?

3.10

Under what conditions should governments be permitted to fund non-core, non-essential programmes/services?

3.11

Does accommodating sensitivities of ANY/ALL religious groups by the City of Ottawa a breech the separation of ‘government’ and ‘religion’?

3.12

Should elected city officials be subjected to a specific term limit? If so, how long?

3.13

Similarly, should city employees (perhaps with the exception of front-line police officers, firefighters and paramedics) face a similar cap of a maximum number of years in the civil service (say, 15 or so)? (This would help bridge the public/private sector gulf and enrich both, as well as slow the destructive trend of emerging ‘privileged class’ of civil servants we are seeing in our society.)

3.14

Why should the City of Ottawa permit the operation of businesses (such as clubs) which ban a citizen from becoming a member based on their gender (or which set aside hours of operation for members of a specific religion)?

3.15

Should the City of Ottawa tolerate the practice of gender discrimination in any form, including ‘gender segregation’ on City property? (In privacy/modesty situation, the existing measures such as ‘family changing rooms’ and ‘family rest-rooms’ are a perfect accommodation to all without implementing gender apartheid.)

3.16

Should City of Ottawa financially support public events (including sports competitions) which practice gender apartheid? Should it tolerate such intolerance in City owned facilities?

3.17

It is difficult for most non-communications specialists to be ‘perfectly bilingual’: still, it is even more difficult to be ‘perfectly trilingual’. As such, the current City of Ottawa language policy unfairly prevents non-linguist allophones, mostly from immigrant backgrounds (such as myself) from even seeking employment with The City. If elected, will you work towards a more inclusive, tolerant workplace which only requires ‘functional bilingualism’, and only in ‘front-line positions’ for personnel which is directly serving the public?

Part 4 – deeper questions

Please, answer the following questions.

4.1

The classical role of government is defined as protecting territorial integrity (not applicable to a municipal government), protecting the security of person and property of its citizens and providing an impartial and objective judiciary. This is a much narrower role than what the modern governments tend to play. Most citizens would likely agree that the role of municipal government also includes supplying clean water, proper sewage treatment/waste (garbage) disposal and road infrastructure.

Should a municipal government to provide any service other than listed above? (Please list.)

Why/why not?

4.2

This will be difficult to put in practice, but…

Do you support, in principle, the assertion that since civil servants are paid from the salaries of ‘regular citizens’, the average civil service salary should not be higher than the average salary in the private sector?

If elected, would you work towards implementing this principle into practice?

4.3

Multiple studies over decades have established that people who regularly use public transit suffer from many more infectious illnesses than people who don’t. If elected, what measures will you pursue to minimize this public health hazard?

4.4

Public transit is used by downtown commuters more than any other group. Yet, most of the people who work downtown are civil servants – whose salary is, on average, already roughly double that of people working in private industry. As such, concentrating on providing increased public transit service to downtown is an additional subsidy to already overpaid civil servants. When the property taxes are rising to unprecedented high levels, forcing people from their homes, how can such a blatant subsidy to already overpaid bureaucrats be justified?

4.5

Cities which have light rail public transit are increasingly converting their systems to uses buses. Since the accommodation to the unions states that no rail system which the City of Ottawa might implement would reduce the number of drivers/commuters had been made, there will not be any cost savings on the salary of operators if a rail-based transit system is brought in. Yet, the construction of rail-based transit systems is much higher than of bus-based systems while at the same time it lacks the flexibility inherent to a bus-based transit system. If there is a justification for a publicly run transit system (which is far from established), will you oppose all the hair-brained schemes involving rail-based system in favour of a reasonable, bus-based system?