Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433685 > unrolled thread

OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2016-11-03 17:57 +0000
    Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-03 18:13 +0000
      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-03 18:29 +0000
        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-03 18:50 +0000
          Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-03 19:53 +0000
            Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-03 19:37 -0700
      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-04 23:51 -0800
        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-05 10:01 -0400
          Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-05 16:07 +0000
            Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news jurb6006@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 15:03 -0700
            Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-05 19:49 -0400
              Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-06 10:07 +0000
                Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-06 05:22 -0800
                  Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-06 15:34 +0000
                Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-06 17:19 -0500
                  Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-07 08:54 +0000
                    Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-07 09:50 -0500
                      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-07 15:43 +0000
                        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-07 12:29 -0500
          Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-07 20:23 -0800
            Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-08 12:32 -0500
    Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2016-11-03 20:49 +0000
      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:00 +0000
        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-03 19:57 -0700
      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-03 19:57 -0700
        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-04 09:46 +0000
          Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-04 07:03 -0700
            Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-04 19:07 +0000
    Re: OT: Julian Barnes most recent pre-election squib. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-03 19:31 -0700
    Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-11-03 19:40 -0700
      Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-04 09:52 +0000
        Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-04 07:14 -0700
    Re: OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-06 19:50 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#433685 — OT: Hillary facing Life in jail following child sex crimes revelations - breaking news

Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server 
than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:

http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a

She really is the pits.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#433693

Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote:
> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server 
> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>
> She really is the pits.

Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433699

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:13:51 +0000, Rob wrote:

> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?

We'd probably all be a lot better off!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433704

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:13:51 +0000, Rob wrote:
>
>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>
> We'd probably all be a lot better off!

As an outsider, I would not want to have one of the two primary
candidates as a president of my country...  I understand there are
other candidates, but we never get any details about them here.

When I would be a US citizen, I would certainly not like being
forced to select one of these two to lead the country.  It would
probably be much better to have no president at all for 4 years,
or to run another candidate selection procedure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433713

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:50:37 +0000, Rob wrote:

> Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:13:51 +0000, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>
>> We'd probably all be a lot better off!
> 
> As an outsider, I would not want to have one of the two primary
> candidates as a president of my country...  I understand there are other
> candidates, but we never get any details about them here.

The other candidates are rubbish as well.

> When I would be a US citizen, I would certainly not like being forced to
> select one of these two to lead the country.  It would probably be much
> better to have no president at all for 4 years, or to run another
> candidate selection procedure.

The voters find themselves in this position solely due to Hillary's point-
blank refusal to make way for a more electable Democrat candidate. In 
fact not only has she refused to step aside, she also stole it from her 
closest rival, Bernie Sanders, by calling on the Superdelegates to back 
her and her alone. Hill's gripe is that she stepped aside for Obama (with 
the utmost resentment as she felt he was jumping her 'turn') on condition 
she would not be denied next time around and 'they' (those creeps in the 
shadows who direct the show and never saw this coming) foolishly agreed. 
Anyway, two terms later, here we are. She could step aside for the good 
of the country but she's so hell-bent on making history by becoming the 
US's first female Jewish president she will risk *everything* including 
her fragile health on this, her last shot at the top job. It is a 
grotesquely huge case of utterly selfish arrogance.
I'm no fan of Trump either but at least I'd sleep at night with him as 
president, having a reasonable expectation of waking up each day and not 
finding myself an unlucky survivor of a nuclear exchange with Russia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433793

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 6:54:09 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:50:37 +0000, Rob wrote:
> 
> > Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:13:51 +0000, Rob wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
> >>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
> >>
> >> We'd probably all be a lot better off!
> > 
> > As an outsider, I would not want to have one of the two primary
> > candidates as a president of my country...  I understand there are other
> > candidates, but we never get any details about them here.
> 
> The other candidates are rubbish as well.
> 
> > When I would be a US citizen, I would certainly not like being forced to
> > select one of these two to lead the country.  It would probably be much
> > better to have no president at all for 4 years, or to run another
> > candidate selection procedure.
> 
> The voters find themselves in this position solely due to Hillary's point-
> blank refusal to make way for a more electable Democrat candidate. In 
> fact not only has she refused to step aside, she also stole it from her 
> closest rival, Bernie Sanders, by calling on the Superdelegates to back 
> her and her alone.

Bernie Sanders has admitted the he's a socialist. The US media have spent so long equating socialism with communism, that all the half-wits that are now voting for Trump would have been voting against Sanders for equally spurious reasons.

Clinton didn't "steal" the candidacy from Sanders - he threw it away by not packaging his policies more carefully.

<snip Cursitor Doom reminding us that he's even more out of touch with reality than Jim Thompson>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433951

Rob wrote:
> Julian Barnes<jb9889@notformail.com>  wrote:
>> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server
>> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>>
>> She really is the pits.
>
> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
   Hell, in many places one cannot vote a split ticket!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433983

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:51:46 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

>Rob wrote:
>> Julian Barnes<jb9889@notformail.com>  wrote:
>>> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server
>>> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>>>
>>> She really is the pits.
>>
>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?

Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
ticket.  I do it all the time.

>   Hell, in many places one cannot vote a split ticket!

Utter nonsense.  However it's understandable that someone who can't
operate a web browser, also can't figure out how to vote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433998

krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:51:46 -0800, Robert Baer
> <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>> Julian Barnes<jb9889@notformail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server
>>>> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>>>>
>>>> She really is the pits.
>>>
>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>
> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
> ticket.  I do it all the time.

But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that?  Over here, it would
not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").

It could only get interesting when a large number of blank votes means
that no candidate gets enough votes to be elected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434032

>"It could only get interesting when a large number of blank votes means
that no candidate gets enough votes to be elected. "

I actually advocate that. If no candidate gets the majority then the position goes unfilled. Imagine what happens. Congress can only pass bills that would otherwise be vetoproof. That also means that some seats in congress go unfilled. Hopefully Diane Feinstein who usually runs unopposed and surprisingly has even less knowledge of the Constitution than Obama. 

That means governors, state legislators, mayors and city councilmen. If they don't get over fifty percent of the registered voters then they simply stay home. 

I am HIGHLY in favor of that. And if nobody gets a majority then the whole fucking government can be empty. They fuck up everything they do. The generals in the military would probably handle actual defense better without their meddling. And we know damn well that we don't need any more laws. There are like millions of laws. 

Yeah, there are millions of laws, just look up laws on the sales of like a head of cabbage, probably take a fucking month and does nothing for the People. Most laws are passed to protect big business from competition. Either that or to advance their interests in exploiting natural resources. Did you know that frackers are exempt from all federal environmental laws ? Did you know that doctors are forbidden from discussing the harms of fracking chemicals with their own patients ? ASK THEM. Ask Dr Rodriguez in PA about that who filed with the court for a variance to be able to more fully discuss his renal patient's condition with them and got turned down flat in a matter of milliseconds. Look up the Monsanto Protection Act. 

This really is the best government money can buy and people are sick as fuck of it and some are ready to start shooting. They know it and they want to take the guns away because they are the ones who deserve to be shot. 

The Clintons are crooks, and these new allegations are just the same as the ones about Trump, people coming out of the woodwork looking for hush money like altarboys who remained silent for thirty fucking years. Like I said about Bill Clinton, he was the GOVERNOR of the state and I am sure people were afraid, and Bill Clinton was PRESIDENT of the country and I am sure people were afraid. But Hillary wasn't. Trump wasn't. 

I know the truth, Trump is also a criminal. Anyone that rich has done something for that money, of that there is no doubt. But he can probably deal with other countries better. 

I'd like to be his adviser and tell him how steeply taxed our goods are going through customs in other countries. How about if your plasma TV had a fifty fucking percent tax slapped on it like in Argentina, which ships (really good) beef here almost for free. 

Free trade is not fair trade and I think he knows that and wants to fix it. If I sell or even give something to someone in another country they tax the living shit out of it right at the border, and might open the box to check see if the value declaration is false, and then not repack it properly so it can get damaged. Is that fucking fair trade ? In fact it is not even free trade. We are getting fucked, and BOTH political parties did that. And both political parties hate Trump. 

Thine enemy's enemies are thine friends so what that means is to vote for someone they all hate is the best thing we can do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434037

On 05 Nov 2016 16:07:56 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:51:46 -0800, Robert Baer
>> <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rob wrote:
>>>> Julian Barnes<jb9889@notformail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server
>>>>> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>>>>>
>>>>> She really is the pits.
>>>>
>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>
>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>
>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 

Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.

>Over here, it would
>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").

Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
tantrum?
>
>It could only get interesting when a large number of blank votes means
>that no candidate gets enough votes to be elected.

Only those voting count, either way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434059

krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>
>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>
>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>
> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>
>>Over here, it would
>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>
> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
> tantrum?

When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.

E.g. when electing members of a house, it would be possible to keep
some seats vacant when people have elected to do so.  The other
members then have to get a majority without the support of those.

For a president seat it may be impractical to do so, but the election
can be re-run with better candidates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434061

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 9:07:05 PM UTC+11, Rob wrote:
> krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
> >>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
> >>>
> >>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
> >>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
> >>
> >>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
> >
> > Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
> >
> >>Over here, it would
> >>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
> >>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
> >>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
> >>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
> >
> > Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
> > tantrum?
> 
> When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
> votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
> is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.
> 
> E.g. when electing members of a house, it would be possible to keep
> some seats vacant when people have elected to do so.  The other
> members then have to get a majority without the support of those.
> 
> For a president seat it may be impractical to do so, but the election
> can be re-run with better candidates.

In France the presidential election is a two stage process, with all the voters taking part in both stage.

In the first stage there is a long slate of candidates, and it serves to select the two most appealing candidates, and the second stage is a run-off between these two candidates.

Some years ago, the French left put forward a number of acceptable candidates, and none of them did all that well, so the run-off was between Chirac, a mainstream right-wing politician, and Jean-Marie Le Pen, a far-right-wing outsider.

The campaign slogan for the second round was "Elect the Crook not the Fascist".

Chirac won by a landside. A few years after he'd served his term as president, he was convicted of "diverting public funds and abusing public confidence" and given a two year suspended prison sentence.

The Australian solution is the single transferable vote. There's only one election, but each voter has to express a preference for each candidate.

After the election, the first preferences are counted.

If a candidate has a majority of first preferences (more first preferences than half the number of votes cast) that candidate is declared the winner.  

If not, the candidate with the fewest first preferences is discarded, and their second preferences distributed amongst the other candidate.

Most seats are decided on second preferences, but the process can go on until all the preferences have been distributed, which can take a while.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434066

bill.sloman@ieee.org <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> Chirac won by a landside. A few years after he'd served his term as president, he was convicted of "diverting public funds and abusing public confidence" and given a two year suspended prison sentence.

Maybe this time in the US the solution will be to put the elected
candidate in prison and make the running mate the president?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434092

On 06 Nov 2016 10:07:00 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>>
>>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>>
>>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>>
>> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>>
>>>Over here, it would
>>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>>
>> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
>> tantrum?
>
>When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
>votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
>is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.

Maybe in your bizaro universe.  In this one, people just laugh at you
for dreaming such nonsense.

>E.g. when electing members of a house, it would be possible to keep
>some seats vacant when people have elected to do so.  The other
>members then have to get a majority without the support of those.

>For a president seat it may be impractical to do so, but the election
>can be re-run with better candidates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434122

krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2016 10:07:00 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>>>
>>>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>>>
>>> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>>>
>>>>Over here, it would
>>>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>>>
>>> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
>>> tantrum?
>>
>>When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
>>votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
>>is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.
>
> Maybe in your bizaro universe.  In this one, people just laugh at you
> for dreaming such nonsense.

When you don't vote, you are not in the position to comment about
nonsense in the voting system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434140

On 07 Nov 2016 08:54:18 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 06 Nov 2016 10:07:00 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>>>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>>>>
>>>>>Over here, it would
>>>>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>>>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>>>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>>>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
>>>> tantrum?
>>>
>>>When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
>>>votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
>>>is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.
>>
>> Maybe in your bizaro universe.  In this one, people just laugh at you
>> for dreaming such nonsense.
>
>When you don't vote, you are not in the position to comment about
>nonsense in the voting system.

That was my point.  People only laugh at adults having tantrums.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434146

krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 07 Nov 2016 08:54:18 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 06 Nov 2016 10:07:00 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>>>>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Over here, it would
>>>>>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>>>>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>>>>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>>>>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
>>>>> tantrum?
>>>>
>>>>When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
>>>>votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
>>>>is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.
>>>
>>> Maybe in your bizaro universe.  In this one, people just laugh at you
>>> for dreaming such nonsense.
>>
>>When you don't vote, you are not in the position to comment about
>>nonsense in the voting system.
>
> That was my point.  People only laugh at adults having tantrums.

Your posts make no sense to me, but that is probably because English
is not my native language.  I can discuss about electronics and about
elections, but not about "temper tantrums".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434151

On 07 Nov 2016 15:43:19 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 07 Nov 2016 08:54:18 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06 Nov 2016 10:07:00 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>>>>>>>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
>>>>>>>> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But what happens when (nearly) everyone does that? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what "they" should do.  Laugh at the morons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Over here, it would
>>>>>>>not influence the end result because those votes are handled the same
>>>>>>>as the voters that do not turn up.  I.e. the "majority" vote is not
>>>>>>>relative to the total number of votes cast, but only relative to the
>>>>>>>"valid" ones (where "blank" is not considered "valid").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what result do you expect?  A lollypop for your temper
>>>>>> tantrum?
>>>>>
>>>>>When the number of "none of the above" votes exceeds the number of
>>>>>votes on any candidate, the position goes unfilled and/or the election
>>>>>is re-run with different candidates, depending on the situation.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe in your bizaro universe.  In this one, people just laugh at you
>>>> for dreaming such nonsense.
>>>
>>>When you don't vote, you are not in the position to comment about
>>>nonsense in the voting system.
>>
>> That was my point.  People only laugh at adults having tantrums.
>
>Your posts make no sense to me, but that is probably because English
>is not my native language.  I can discuss about electronics and about
>elections, but not about "temper tantrums".

Then, yes, you are in the wrong discussion.  The hate Hillary/Trump
"vote for no one crowd" is having a temper tantrum. They do this every
four years, with a minor apoplexy in the intervening two years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434207

krw wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:51:46 -0800, Robert Baer
> <robertbaer@localnet.com>  wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Julian Barnes<jb9889@notformail.com>   wrote:
>>>> Some of us always suspected there was more to that private email server
>>>> than just off-the-record chats with Podesta:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/jyrpx9a
>>>>
>>>> She really is the pits.
>>>
>>> Is there no "none of the above" selection on a US vote ballot, and a
>>> campaign to vote that, and what would happen when it gets a majority?
>
> Sure there is.  Just don't vote for anyone in that position on the
> ticket.  I do it all the time.
>
>>    Hell, in many places one cannot vote a split ticket!
>
> Utter nonsense.  However it's understandable that someone who can't
> operate a web browser, also can't figure out how to vote.
>
   I know how,fuckhead.
   Here in WA the ballot as constructed gave absolute no choice.
   For example if you voted Libertarian President,you could NOT vote 
(say) socialist vice President.
   And if you stupidly write in any mixed-party, your vote will be 
counted null and void "by law".

   And, doofus, this ain't the only state where that is the case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web