Donald Trump for President Thread

[wm02]

*looks at match thread, collapses in laughter

Haha! Fantastic

 

[TheFinnFan]

...I think it's over, Matey.

Youre probs right pal

 

[MartyMcFly]

Stopped at "they'd never see it". I seriously doubt a programmers ability if they're that confident that they've left no trace.

You always leave a trace.

If he knows the system well enough then there's no problem with that statement. Every trace needs to be explicitly implemented by another programmer so therefore it you know it well enough it can be bypassed and dummy traces created.

If you are the one implementing the software as opposed to hacking it then it's quite trivial.

I am a programmer.

 

[Ashtonian]

Aye could well have been the YouGuv one, I had an operation that week so can't say I was following it very closely. I was following the primaries a bit closer though and can't off the top of my head think of one that the polls suggested he'd lose that he won but as you say it is all a bit immaterial anyhow as it is the one in November that counts.

I question your assertion on turnout - democrats have in recent years a much better get out the vote operation that targets and helps with low enthusiasm voters. Plus there is a large gender gap in US voting that has been present over the past 8 general elections, not only are there more women eligible than men but they are also more likely to vote than their male counterparts. That could well be a key component in this election (although I disagree with @Ashtonian 's reasoning of why, it does look like Clinton will win women by a much higher margin than Obama did).

I thought he did an awful job with the sex scandal issue but each to his/her own.

Lol I'm not even claiming that. Clinton will win female vote to a large extent because a) trump and his married women comment. And b) his pro life idea from the debate last night.

Perhaps the word i have missed off is influenced rather than decide

 

[wm02]

Trump closed the debate brilliantly when he said that four years of Clinton would basically be four years of Obama. And that will resonate well in puplic I think.

Exciting 19 days ahead.

It's not over until it's over.

It's probably too late and that line was used throughout the Republican primaries by the more traditional candidates. It's a good line but nothing new

 

[Eggs]

...the Springsteen interview on Channel 4 news was interesting on Tuesday. He's clearly not a Clinton fan but he absolutely loaths Trump. His view is Trump knows he's already beaten and is now looking to blame the establishment for voter fraud which will be particularly damaging for the US.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Aye could well have been the YouGuv one, I had an operation that week so can't say I was following it very closely. I was following the primaries a bit closer though and can't off the top of my head think of one that the polls suggested he'd lose that he won but as you say it is all a bit immaterial anyhow as it is the one in November that counts.

I question your assertion on turnout - democrats have in recent years a much better get out the vote operation that targets and helps with low enthusiasm voters. Plus there is a large gender gap in US voting that has been present over the past 8 general elections, not only are there more women eligible than men but they are also more likely to vote than their male counterparts. That could well be a key component in this election (although I disagree with @Ashtonian 's reasoning of why, it does look like Clinton will win women by a much higher margin than Obama did).

I thought he did an awful job with the sex scandal issue but each to his/her own.

The polls didn't think he would win the rust belt states and he ended up destroying Cruz there.

The big difference this year is the democrats have lost a lot of support from in particular white working class men. If you add them who are 100% behind Trump to the traditional GOP voting base who still have many issues with Trump he has the numbers to win.

I thought he cast doubt on the validity of the 9 women since he showed that Clinton's campaign would be capable of falsifying the evidence.

 

[RaleighBlue]

If he knows the system well enough then there's no problem with that statement. Every trace needs to be explicitly implemented by another programmer so therefore it you know it well enough it can be bypassed and dummy traces created.

If you are the one implementing the software as opposed to hacking it then it's quite trivial.

I am a programmer.

Right, but we assume these antecedents:

1) a vote comes to the software
2) the software tallies the vote and decides whether to change it based on an algorithm
3) the vote is either changed or remains unchanged

The software logs the initial vote either way, since it has to act upon the vote with it's algorithm and decide whether to swap it. If the vote is in favor of the intended candidate, it will never be swapped.

So unless no one is ever allowed to examine the code of the suspect voting machine software there are traces of that in the source itself, at a minimum. I would also expect these machines to have some pretty intense event logging software.

I'm saying literally anything you do with a computer has a trace unless you physically destroy the computer. You cannot objectively say, 'they could never see it'.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Perhaps the word i have missed off is influenced rather than decide

Tbf Ash that is a pretty big difference, the way you phrased it before suggested it was the sole reason and would outweigh policy disagreements.

 

[Moomin]

I'm not a sexist and that isn't a sexist implication. There's nothing wrong in pointing out the obvious, stop trying to shame us

Treat women with the respect they deserve.

 

[wm02]

The polls didn't think he would win the rust belt states and he ended up destroying Cruz there.

The big difference this year is the democrats have lost a lot of support from in particular white working class men. If you add them who are 100% behind Trump to the traditional GOP voting base who still have many issues with Trump he has the numbers to win.

That's just one group though. He's going to be the first Republican nominee in over 50 years to lose the college educated whites vote. Faring far worse among women than Romney in 2012. Hasn't done anything since the convention to expand his base

 

[ilikecheese]

...the Springsteen interview on Channel 4 news was interesting on Tuesday. He's clearly not a Clinton fan but he absolutely loaths Trump. His view is Trump knows he's already beaten and is now looking to blame the establishment for voter fraud which will be particularly damaging for the US.

That's exactly why her response was "That's horrifying". It is horrifying that he would be such a sore loser that he'd undermine our democratic process by insinuating voter fraud.

He simply proves over and over and over again that he simply is not fit to lead this country...or any country for that matter.

 

[LinekersLegs]

The polls didn't think he would win the rust belt states and he ended up destroying Cruz there.

The big difference this year is the democrats have lost a lot of support from in particular white working class men. If you add them who are 100% behind Trump to the traditional GOP voting base who still have many issues with Trump he has the numbers to win.

I thought he cast doubt on the validity of the 9 women since he showed that Clinton's campaign would be capable of falsifying the evidence.

Surprisingly some of the recent polls have suggested that Trump isn't outperforming Romney with wwc men as much as you'd expect although it does certainly seem to be a factor in Iowa and Ohio.

The question is has it been outweighed by the defection of traditionally Republican college educated voters, some of the southern states have a much higher % of those voters which makes North Carolina and Georgia interesting.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Right, but we assume these antecedents:

1) a vote comes to the software
2) the software tallies the vote and decides whether to change it based on an algorithm
3) the vote is either changed or remains unchanged

The software logs the initial vote either way, since it has to act upon the vote with it's algorithm and decide whether to swap it. If the vote is in favor of the intended candidate, it will never be swapped.

So unless no one is ever allowed to examine the code of the suspect voting machine software there are traces of that in the source itself, at a minimum. I would also expect these machines to have some pretty intense event logging software.

I'm saying literally anything you do with a computer has a trace unless you physically destroy the computer. You cannot objectively say, 'they could never see it'.

Certain viruses have the means of replacing existing code and then restoring the original code after they are done.

I guess that's similar to what he was referring to.

The dude was a programmer who stood and testified in front of the Senate. I suspect he wasn't just some guy but an expert in the field.

 

[RAFUH]

Trump is caught on audio/video saying he does illegal things (grope women without consent): Never happened. He is just self aggrandizing. It is part of his pubic persona. There's no proof. You can't believe people coming forward now saying they saw/experienced it.

Democratic operative is caught on audio/video saying he does illegal things (voter fraud): This absolutely happened. Couldn't possibly be a guy self aggrandizing. It would hurt his reputation. There's proof. People have seen it.

The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding