Trump’s Right – The System Is Rigged

[USN_Hokie]

Trump’s Right – The System Is Rigged And We Don’t Owe It Our Default Acceptance
Kurt Schlichter
Oct 24, 2016 12:01 AM

No pearl went unclutched when Trump refused to agree in advance to validate the giant scam that is this election. Yeah, scam. In light of all we’ve seen during this stupidest of years, a year where I had to move my book about this country tearing itself apart from the fiction section to nonfiction, how the hell can anyone keep a straight face as he, she, or xe demands that we default to trust the system?

Okay, this is where Team Fake Pearl Clutch jumps in and whines about my “dangerous talk” and about how I have no “honor” because I won’t submit in advance to another establishment okie-doke. Yeah, sure, whatever – and the emperor caught pneumonia because the little kid pointed out that he wasn’t wearing any clothes, not because he was walking around with his junk in the wind.

The system is manifestly rigged – even Heap Big Chief Warren used to say so until a memo informed her that this meme is now inconvenient – so spare me your sanctimonious crap about our sacred system. Our loyalty is properly only to the Constitution, not a perversion of it. Just because you hold office under Article I, II, or III doesn’t mean we still owe you respect or deference when you treat your obligations to the People like a teenage Thai boy at one of Raymond Burr’s Halloween parties.

We owe the system nothing. Nada. Zip. Instead, the system owes us fairness and honesty, and without them it has no right to our default acceptance of its results. That acceptance must be earned. This means that the system must aggressively police its own integrity, and this year it has utterly failed to do so.
CARTOONS | Henry Payne
View Cartoon

The most important thing in a democratic republic, the keystone that holds it together and ensures the peaceful transition of power, is the ability for a loser to accept a loss. We used to be able to fight out our political differences and, if we came up short, shrug and say, “Well, next time we’ll convince a majority.” We could move on, confident that the playing field had been level, that we had been heard, and that we had lost fair and square.

"Not anymore. Trump’s wrong about a lot, but he’s not wrong about this. He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. And Trump is not the problem for saying so.

In a sudden and shocking burst of coherence during the third debate, in which Trump put a cherry on top of his brutal trouncing of his Westworld-escapee opponent by refusing to agree to be scammed, The Donald articulated a three-point critique of the system that its defenders have not even tried to answer. Instead, all we got was fake outrage over Trump’s perfectly legitimate rejection of the default legitimacy of our illegitimate system.

His first point was that the media is not merely biased but an active partisan player for the Democrats. The media ignores what hurts the left (remember the 24/7 coverage of Project Veritas? Good times) and plays up nonsense that helps it (remember the 24/7 coverage of Chubby de la Cartel Chica? Bueno times). The media, as it loves to crow, is a vital component of the system, but only when it at least pretends to be objective. By going full Goebbels – never go full Goebbels – it undercut and wrecked the foundational ability of all citizens to be heard and respected and to believe that they are competing on a level playing field. If you aren’t one of the mouth-breathing drool donors in love with Hillary, do you feel you’ve been heard or respected? Do you believe Trump has been able to compete on a level playing field?

Then there is electoral integrity. We’ve seen numerous investigations of voter fraud and no one cares. We have one party refusing to clear voter rolls of ineligible voters, while also on a quest to ensure that no one need prove his identity to vote. Sure, Democrats have good reason to believe their voters are too lazy and/or stupid to obtain ID cards, but we all know why they really oppose voter ID: it makes it harder to cheat. And then there’s Project Veritas. We have a Democrat party operative and the husband of a sitting Democrat congressbeing caught on tape proving Democrat catspaws paid to cause violence at a Trump rally, violence which the media covered and blamed on Trump to damaging effect. And this guy went to the White House hundreds of times and frequently met with President Faily McWorsethancarter.

Hey Pearl Clutchers, read that again and tell me how this isn’t a thousand times worse than Watergate. Then tell me how this is getting only a millionth of the outrage and coverage if the system isn’t rigged.

So we’re supposed to take it on faith that the votes are going to be counted fairly? Uh huh, sure. If you think Trump is somehow morally obligated to preemptively give up his right to challenge the result after that, you can kiss his hanging chad.

And then there’s the corruption of the rule of law. Trump was right – Hillary should not even be running because if we had a single justice system – instead of one for the powerful and connected and another for everyone else – her unhealthy carcass would be in federal prison. That’s not hyperbole – that’s literal truth understood by anyone who worked with classified materials and/or actually passed a bar exam. Then there is the IRS persecution of conservative organizations that has gone totally unpunished. And, of course, the Wikileaks treasure trove has shown that the Democrats simply ignore the law in their campaigns, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable while their opponents will see a weaponized FBI and DOJ turned upon them.

The system is rigged.

It would be nice to be able to say, “Well, she won fair and square.” But that’s not going to happen. My gut says that a majority of people will vote for her, but I live in Los Angeles and a lot of people around here are libfascist half-wits, so maybe my perspective is skewed. Maybe the polls are right – you know, the super scientific ones putting the race somewhere between Felonia von Pantsuit up 12 and Trump up 3. But this election won’t be “fair” in any sense of the word. The media has put not just its thumb but its bloated behind on the scale. All of us have not been heard, much less been respected. How can we trust the votes will be counted fairly when clearly documented admissions of election tampering get a mere shrug if they aren’t ignored entirely?

Sorry (not sorry), but like Trump, I refuse to be a good little boy and politely agree in advance to accept whatever the ruling class chooses to do without protest or complaint. You want us to respect and honor what you say are the results of the election? Start by respecting and honoring us.

Is this dangerous talk? Hell yes – but the danger doesn’t come from us pointing out the corruption. The danger is the corruption. I walked through wrecked villages in the aftermath of a civil war, so I sure as hell don’t need your lessons about what lies at the bottom of the slippery slope your ruling class is tobogganing down. I know – and as my new book predicts, it’s really bad. But the solution isn’t to try to shut us up when we dare point out the truth – nor will it work. As the hep kids say, we are now hella woke. The solution is to demand the system do its damn job and root out corruption and earn back the default acceptance we would love nothing more than to be able to offer again, confident that the system is unrigged. Too bad if our refusal to simply acquiesce to your scam is inconvenient.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschl ... e-n2235980

[HokieHam]

Yup.

[HokieHam]

[absolutvt03]

"Not anymore. Trump’s wrong about a lot, but he’s not wrong about this. He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. And Trump is not the problem for saying so.

What a ridiculous statement. I love that the most unlikable candidate in modern history losing an election "fair and square" is somehow impossible. Here's a crazy idea... maybe a lot of people just really don't like Donald Trump. I know that's hard for some to accept here but can we at least agree that it's feasible? Of course the election didn't become "rigged" until it started looking like Trump was going to lose. But by all means blame the system, the opposing party, everyone but Trump and the idiots who decided to nominate him. If he loses, it won't be because the system is "rigged". It will be because he's disliked on a level never seen in a Presidential election and has done nothing to change that. If Trump loses, it will be because of Trump, nothing else.

[HokieJoe]

"Not anymore. Trump’s wrong about a lot, but he’s not wrong about this. He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. And Trump is not the problem for saying so.

What a ridiculous statement. I love that the most unlikable candidate in modern history losing an election "fair and square" is somehow impossible. Here's a crazy idea... maybe a lot of people just really don't like Donald Trump. I know that's hard for some to accept here but can we at least agree that it's feasible? Of course the election didn't become "rigged" until it started looking like Trump was going to lose. But by all means blame the system, the opposing party, everyone but Trump and the idiots who decided to nominate him. If he loses, it won't be because the system is "rigged". It will be because he's disliked on a level never seen in a Presidential election and has done nothing to change that. If Trump loses, it will be because of Trump, nothing else.

It's not a beauty contest. Unlikability, while Trump's fault, does not provide cover to anyone voting for a lawless parasite like Clinton.

[USN_Hokie]

"Not anymore. Trump’s wrong about a lot, but he’s not wrong about this. He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. And Trump is not the problem for saying so.

What a ridiculous statement. I love that the most unlikable candidate in modern history losing an election "fair and square" is somehow impossible. Here's a crazy idea... maybe a lot of people just really don't like Donald Trump. I know that's hard for some to accept here but can we at least agree that it's feasible? Of course the election didn't become "rigged" until it started looking like Trump was going to lose. But by all means blame the system, the opposing party, everyone but Trump and the idiots who decided to nominate him. If he loses, it won't be because the system is "rigged". It will be because he's disliked on a level never seen in a Presidential election and has done nothing to change that. If Trump loses, it will be because of Trump, nothing else.

Did you read the 6 paragraphs following that quote? Rather than reiterate, I'd just refer you there - because your comments are covered quite extensively. If you want to debate one of those points, it would be a more productive comment than attacking the summary point.

The system is rigged from top to bottom...and the candidate you support should be rotting in prison.

[absolutvt03]

It's not a beauty contest. Unlikability, while Trump's fault, does not provide cover to anyone voting for a lawless parasite like Clinton.

I wasn't trying to "provide cover" to anyone. I was saying it's flat out ridiculous to say that if Trump loses it can only be because the system is unfair. Not because he's a terrible candidate or because he's repeatedly alienated various groups of voters... but because it's "rigged".

Did you read the 6 paragraphs following that quote? Rather than reiterate, I'd just refer you there - because your comments are covered quite extensively. If you want to debate one of those points, it would be a more productive comment than attacking the summary point.

The system is rigged from top to bottom...and the candidate you support should be rotting in prison.

I skimmed it but I don't see anything talking about Trump losing because of himself. The author is an obviously biased whiner (probably why he relates to Trump) and is entitled to his opinion but this "article" is garbage. If you want to point me to where he talks about how a Trump loss could be blamed on Trump being a terrible candidate who has gone out of his way to alienate certain voters then I'll be happy to read it. To conclude that the only way Trump can possibly lose is because the system is "rigged" is asinine. The system is not "rigged". That's just you and others whining because it looks like the candidate you support is going to lose. If Trump loses it will be because he only ever connected with white males without a college degree. It will be because his rhetoric towards immigrants alienated minority voters. It will be because he was never able to win support from black voters. It will be because his comments, actions, and attitude towards women alienated women voters. If Clinton loses it will be because she was unable to get the demographics that helped Obama (minorities, younger voters) to turnout in equal or greater numbers. It will be because she was unable to convince voters that she was trustworthy and/or healthy enough for the office. Claiming the system is "rigged" while ignoring all the flaws a candidate has is like blaming the refs for a loss after your team turned the ball over five times, gave up 500 yards, and only crossed midfield once.

[HokieJoe]

It's not a beauty contest. Unlikability, while Trump's fault, does not provide cover to anyone voting for a lawless parasite like Clinton.

I wasn't trying to "provide cover" to anyone. I was saying it's flat out ridiculous to say that if Trump loses it can only be because the system is unfair. Not because he's a terrible candidate or because he's repeatedly alienated various groups of voters... but because it's "rigged".

Did you read the 6 paragraphs following that quote? Rather than reiterate, I'd just refer you there - because your comments are covered quite extensively. If you want to debate one of those points, it would be a more productive comment than attacking the summary point.

The system is rigged from top to bottom...and the candidate you support should be rotting in prison.

I skimmed it but I don't see anything talking about Trump losing because of himself. The author is an obviously biased whiner (probably why he relates to Trump) and is entitled to his opinion but this "article" is garbage. If you want to point me to where he talks about how a Trump loss could be blamed on Trump being a terrible candidate who has gone out of his way to alienate certain voters then I'll be happy to read it. To conclude that the only way Trump can possibly lose is because the system is "rigged" is asinine. The system is not "rigged". That's just you and others whining because it looks like the candidate you support is going to lose. If Trump loses it will be because he only ever connected with white males without a college degree. It will be because his rhetoric towards immigrants alienated minority voters. It will be because he was never able to win support from black voters. It will be because his comments, actions, and attitude towards women alienated women voters. Claiming the system is "rigged" while ignoring all the flaws Trump has as a candidate is like blaming the refs for a loss after your team turned the ball over five times, gave up 500 yards, and only crossed midfield once.

Rigged systems and bad candidates are not mutually exclusive conditions. Yes, he's pissed off a lot people. Those people, generally speaking have head-in-ass syndrome. Clinton is demonstrably worse as a candidate because she disregards the law...Serially. But Trump said mean things!

Those people have F'ed up priorities. They're too stupid to realize that one day the shoe will be on the other foot; and they won't have anyone to cry to but themselves. The whole country will be degraded by electing Clinton. It will be with Trump as well, but his issues don't rise to the level of Clinton's.

[absolutvt03]

Rigged systems and bad candidates are not mutually exclusive conditions. Yes, he's pissed off a lot people. Those people, generally speaking have head-in-ass syndrome. Clinton is demonstrably worse as a candidate because she disregards the law...Serially. But Trump said mean things!

Those people have F'ed up priorities. They're too stupid to realize that one day the shoe will be on the other foot; and they won't have anyone to cry to but themselves. The whole country will have be degraded by electing Clinton. It will be with Trump as well, but his issues don't rise to the level of Clinton's.

Your unwarranted criticism of people voting for the other candidate aside, no one is saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm saying to conclude that the only way Trump loses is because the system is "rigged" is dumb especially considering all the flaws he has as a candidate. And yet that's what the author of the posted article is saying: " He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. "

Trump is not a good candidate (neither is Clinton). To decide that there's no way he could lose "fair and square" is ridiculous. Of course he could lose "fair and square". He's disliked by voters on a level never seen before (again with Clinton close behind). Maybe more people just dislike him than Clinton. Is that not "fair and square"?

[USN_Hokie]

No you apparently think they're mutually exclusive because you can't separate the two in any argument.

[absolutvt03]

No you apparently think they're mutually exclusive because you can't separate the two in any argument.

Another example of you saying something that is patently false. Try sticking to what I post and not what you make up in your head.

[VisorBoy]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

[USN_Hokie]

No you apparently think they're mutually exclusive because you can't separate the two in any argument.

Another example of you saying something that is patently false. Try sticking to what I post and not what you make up in your head.

Absolut signals he's lost another argument...

[USN_Hokie]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

[absolutvt03]

No you apparently think they're mutually exclusive because you can't separate the two in any argument.

Another example of you saying something that is patently false. Try sticking to what I post and not what you make up in your head.

Absolut signals he's lost another argument...

USN signals that he has nothing relevant or intelligent to say about the topic or my posts but wants to respond anyways.

[absolutvt03]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

I did and it's not worth reading beyond that. Easy question... is it possible for Trump to lose the election "fair and square" or put another way is it possible for Trump to lose the election because he's a terrible candidate and not because of any kind of "rigged system"?

[VisorBoy]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

I was speaking generally.

[USN_Hokie]

No you apparently think they're mutually exclusive because you can't separate the two in any argument.

Another example of you saying something that is patently false. Try sticking to what I post and not what you make up in your head.

Absolut signals he's lost another argument...

USN signals that he has nothing relevant or intelligent to say about the topic or my posts but wants to respond anyways.

I'm not sure anything can be said about a monkey flinging poo.

[absolutvt03]

I'm not sure anything can be said about a monkey flinging poo.

I know but I still try to respond to your posts as best I can. I usually just ignore the parts where you call me autistic or make up things that were never said.

[USN_Hokie]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

I did and it's not worth reading beyond that. Easy question... is it possible for Trump to lose the election "fair and square" or put another way is it possible for Trump to lose the election because he's a terrible candidate and not because of any kind of "rigged system"?

If Woodward and Bernstein refused to report on Watergate and instead covered it up and vetted attacks / committed character assassination against his opponents, how "fair and square" would you call that? There is massive fraud being committed as we speak, but the "game" has been rigged from the get go.

Now, multiply Watergate x1000. Try hard to "progress" beyond single stage thinking.

[USN_Hokie]

I'm not sure anything can be said about a monkey flinging poo.

I know but I still try to respond to your posts as best I can. I usually just ignore the parts where you call me autistic or make up things that were never said.

If any autistics were offended I apologize.

[HokieFanDC]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

The media that mostly supports Dems is most definitely slanted to reporting favorably to Hillary, and negatively toward Trump.
And the media that supports the GOP is similarly situated. I don't know the absolute stats, but I'm guessing the media that supports Dems has a larger footprint and broader reach.

The electoral system. Yes, there is voter fraud. But, in no way is the voter fraud large enough to have a tiny impact on the election. The idea that it is Dems not clearing voter records is a false one...this happens all over the country, in blue and red districts. That's a LIV red herring.

And as for Hillary's charges, that's not really related to the election. Maybe she should be in jail, maybe not. But, she's not right now, and hasn't been charged. But, lots of people won't vote for her b/c of the publicity around it. Ppl may want her in jail, but they certainly can decide whether want to vote for her or not, based on lots of info, mostly negative, about her activities.

Trump's continual moaning about the system plays well with his base. It even plays well with some people who can't stand him, and may convince them to not vote for Hillary...but most likely won't convince them to vote for him.

If he wasn't such a douche himself, he might have a chance. But, he is, and that means a lot of people won't vote for him, because of him, not because of the "system".

[absolutvt03]

The 'system' (whatever that means) is not rigged. The Presidential election results have not and will not be rigged. A man who is not supported by his own party and who is unfavorable to over 60% (!) of the population will generally lose an election.

Trump losing in November will simply be the natural end to what's become a losing proposition by (a plurality, not a majority) of GOP primary voters. The sooner Republicans realize the blame lies with either their candidate, their platform, or their ability to articulate an attractive message, they'll be able to focus on the hard work of unifying their party's internal fissures or finally breaking apart into several different parties. Just because Trump loses (if he does) would not make such an occurrence the fault of the media, the voters, or GOP leadership.

As it is currently, the GOP is a 3-party conglomerate (Reagan Pubs, Tea Party Pubs, Alt-Right Pubs), which makes it difficult to win national elections against a unified opposition party if the entire trio doesn't buy into the singular GOP candidate. Trump is a clear example of a candidate who does not fulfill that necessity.

The several voters on this board (myself included) who would otherwise support a mainstream Republican candidate over Clinton are a testament to this.

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you?

I did and it's not worth reading beyond that. Easy question... is it possible for Trump to lose the election "fair and square" or put another way is it possible for Trump to lose the election because he's a terrible candidate and not because of any kind of "rigged system"?

If Woodward and Bernstein refused to report on Watergate and instead covered it up and vetted attacks / committed character assassination against his opponents, how "fair and square" would you call that? There is massive fraud being committed as we speak, but the "game" has been rigged from the get go.

Now, multiply Watergate x1000. Try hard to "progress" beyond single stage thinking.

So your answer is no, it's not possible that Trump loses the election based on his own merits (or lack thereof)?

[USN_Hokie]

The electoral system. Yes, there is voter fraud. But, in no way is the voter fraud large enough to have a tiny impact on the election. The idea that it is Dems not clearing voter records is a false one...this happens all over the country, in blue and red districts. That's a LIV red herring.

How much voter fraud is there? Give me a number. You must be able to quantify it if you can state so unequivocally that it doesn't even have a tiny impact.

[USN_Hokie]

And as for Hillary's charges, that's not really related to the election. Maybe she should be in jail, maybe not. But, she's not right now, and hasn't been charged. But, lots of people won't vote for her b/c of the publicity around it. Ppl may want her in jail, but they certainly can decide whether want to vote for her or not, based on lots of info, mostly negative, about her activities.

Not sure how you can say that. It has everything to do with this election and frankly, is a large motivation for her and the media to commit fraud in order to get her elected.