Trump’s Right – The System Is Rigged

[HokieFanDC]

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.

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

[USN_Hokie]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

[VisorBoy]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

The 1.8M number is from a Pew study regarding number of deceased persons still on voting rolls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ter-fraud/

The whole voter fraud issue has two parts:
- The state of voting records currently.
- The reality of actual fraud.

There is evidence (Pew study) that voting records need to be updated. This can and should be brought to light, and it's implicit upon states to do this (it's not a federal gov't thing of course). But using this as evidence that fraud is actually occurring and widespread, especially when the data doesn't back up the conclusions, is where Trump is misleading.

[USN_Hokie]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

The 1.8M number is from a Pew study regarding number of deceased persons still on voting rolls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ter-fraud/

The whole voter fraud issue has two parts:
- The state of voting records currently.
- The reality of actual fraud.

There is evidence (Pew study) that voting records need to be updated. This can and should be brought to light, and it's implicit upon states to do this (it's not a federal gov't thing of course). But using this as evidence that fraud is actually occurring and widespread, especially when the data doesn't back up the conclusions, is where Trump is misleading.

Thanks. I read that when discovering that Trump never said it as DC alleged.

Trump is such a liar for saying all these things he never said! /sarcasm

[HokieFanDC]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

Trump quote, "Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for somebody else." How do you not know this? He has mentioned 1.8 million many, many times.
As for ridiculous, no one can give you a number on a future election, but past results say that it is rare. And Trump is the one making these claims, and spouting the 1.8 million number, without any proof or facts to back up his rhetoric.

On #2, I disagree. In the last 3 POTUS elections, the poll favorite has won, and not wildly off from polls.

On PA, that is a false RWNJ talking point, if we're going to be honest.

[USN_Hokie]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

Trump quote, "Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for somebody else." How do you not know this? He has mentioned 1.8 million many, many times.
As for ridiculous, no one can give you a number on a future election, but past results say that it is rare. And Trump is the one making these claims, and spouting the 1.8 million number, without any proof or facts to back up his rhetoric.

On #2, I disagree. In the last 3 POTUS elections, the poll favorite has won, and not wildly off from polls.

On PA, that is a false RWNJ talking point, if we're going to be honest.

1. Fair enough. I didn't see it in the first page of google. Google has been particularly crap lately, by the way. I don't watch the "news" so I don't hear these bs soundbites.

2. Still a circular argument, and I don't even think a correct one.

3. Please explain what's false. How did Romney not earn a single vote in (can't remember the #, double digits) several voting districts? It's a statistical impossibility which becomes criminal when you consider there are people in those districts who say they voted for Romney.

[HokieFanDC]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

Trump quote, "Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for somebody else." How do you not know this? He has mentioned 1.8 million many, many times.
As for ridiculous, no one can give you a number on a future election, but past results say that it is rare. And Trump is the one making these claims, and spouting the 1.8 million number, without any proof or facts to back up his rhetoric.

On #2, I disagree. In the last 3 POTUS elections, the poll favorite has won, and not wildly off from polls.

On PA, that is a false RWNJ talking point, if we're going to be honest.

1. Fair enough. I didn't see it in the first page of google. Google has been particularly crap lately, by the way. I don't watch the "news" so I don't hear these bs soundbites.

2. Still a circular argument, and I don't even think a correct one.

3. Please explain what's false. How did Romney not earn a single vote in (can't remember the #, double digits) several voting districts? It's a statistical impossibility which becomes criminal when you consider there are people in those districts who say they voted for Romney.

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

[USN_Hokie]

2 data points.

1) There have been several studies done on voter fraud, and the results have been that the number of cases of voter fraud is rare. Trump is spouting a number of 1.8M to his supporters, which is a total fabrication when talking about voter fraud.

Studies of past elections are meaningless. We're talking about this election - give me a number. Also, you need to correct yourself because Trump never said 1.8 million fraudulent votes or 1.8M anything for that matter.. We can't have an honest discussion if you're just going to make stuff up.

2) If there was massive voter fraud, then the results of an election would look significantly different than the polls. That hasn't happened. The polls and voting results all look like you would expect.

WADR, this is a ridiculous circular argument (and it's not even true - we've seen relatively large variations from polling #'s in the past). What do you think polling methodologies are developed from? Psst - they (in part) look at turnout/demographics from previous elections.

The truth is that previous polling results in places like PA have resulted in statistically impossible results. If you don't believe me that fraud occurs, listen to the Hillary campaign. They thought they lost primaries because of it.

Trump quote, "Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for somebody else." How do you not know this? He has mentioned 1.8 million many, many times.
As for ridiculous, no one can give you a number on a future election, but past results say that it is rare. And Trump is the one making these claims, and spouting the 1.8 million number, without any proof or facts to back up his rhetoric.

On #2, I disagree. In the last 3 POTUS elections, the poll favorite has won, and not wildly off from polls.

On PA, that is a false RWNJ talking point, if we're going to be honest.

1. Fair enough. I didn't see it in the first page of google. Google has been particularly crap lately, by the way. I don't watch the "news" so I don't hear these bs soundbites.

2. Still a circular argument, and I don't even think a correct one.

3. Please explain what's false. How did Romney not earn a single vote in (can't remember the #, double digits) several voting districts? It's a statistical impossibility which becomes criminal when you consider there are people in those districts who say they voted for Romney.

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

You're arguing over the lexicon (I'll have to check that), that's unimportant. It's the numbers that matter and the odds are impossible.

[UpstateSCHokie]

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

A mathematician says its a stastistical impossibility:

Is it within reason to question whether election officials simply chose not to record thousands of Republican votes? If the numbers in Philadelphia are any indication, the answer is yes. A week after the 2012 election, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.

“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do. When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to zero votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Fidel Castro never did this well. That said, not a single major media outlet followed up on the Philadelphia story.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/proof-thousa ... 3AZskQW.99

You say its impossible to commit voter fraud to influence the outcome of a national election, but that's not really true when the national election hinges on a few swing states. All you have to do is tip the scales enough in those swing states and voila - election fraud steals the election.

[absolutvt03]

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

A mathematician says its a stastistical impossibility:

Is it within reason to question whether election officials simply chose not to record thousands of Republican votes? If the numbers in Philadelphia are any indication, the answer is yes. A week after the 2012 election, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.

“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do. When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to zero votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Fidel Castro never did this well. That said, not a single major media outlet followed up on the Philadelphia story.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/proof-thousa ... 3AZskQW.99

You say its impossible to commit voter fraud to influence the outcome of a national election, but that's not really true when the national election hinges on a few swing states. All you have to do is tip the scales enough in those swing states and voila - election fraud steals the election.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means. It's most certainly possible. Just about anything is statistically possible even if it's not probable. Of course the whole "Romney got zero votes in these areas" has been covered and explained extensively back when that meme was making the rounds.

[USN_Hokie]

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

A mathematician says its a stastistical impossibility:

Is it within reason to question whether election officials simply chose not to record thousands of Republican votes? If the numbers in Philadelphia are any indication, the answer is yes. A week after the 2012 election, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.

“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do. When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to zero votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Fidel Castro never did this well. That said, not a single major media outlet followed up on the Philadelphia story.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/proof-thousa ... 3AZskQW.99

You say its impossible to commit voter fraud to influence the outcome of a national election, but that's not really true when the national election hinges on a few swing states. All you have to do is tip the scales enough in those swing states and voila - election fraud steals the election.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means. It's most certainly possible. Just about anything is statistically possible even if it's not probable. Of course the whole "Romney got zero votes in these areas" has been covered and explained extensively back when that meme was making the rounds.

Maybe you should read more carefully and direct your comment to DC.

[absolutvt03]

To answer #3, there were zero districts where Romney didn't receive a vote. The meme that went around did say district, but that was false. PA has 66 wards (districts). Each of them is divided into divisions. It is true that 59 divisions in the city of Philly (not metro Philly) had zero Romney votes. These were all heavily black neighborhoods and the total votes in these divisions ranged from 139 votes to 612 votes. They are small areas, and heavily Democratic. That's how Romney didn't receive a vote. The same thing happened to McCain vs Obama in '08. The same thing happened to Obama vs Romney in Utah in '12. And there aren't people there who said they voted for Romney.

A mathematician says its a stastistical impossibility:

Is it within reason to question whether election officials simply chose not to record thousands of Republican votes? If the numbers in Philadelphia are any indication, the answer is yes. A week after the 2012 election, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.

“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do. When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to zero votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Fidel Castro never did this well. That said, not a single major media outlet followed up on the Philadelphia story.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/proof-thousa ... 3AZskQW.99

You say its impossible to commit voter fraud to influence the outcome of a national election, but that's not really true when the national election hinges on a few swing states. All you have to do is tip the scales enough in those swing states and voila - election fraud steals the election.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means. It's most certainly possible. Just about anything is statistically possible even if it's not probable. Of course the whole "Romney got zero votes in these areas" has been covered and explained extensively back when that meme was making the rounds.

Maybe you should read more carefully and direct your comment to DC.

Why? I'm agreeing with him. His explanation of the "Romney got zero votes here" fits with what I remember reading at the time the meme was popular as well.

[burgrugby]

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 would argue that much of his "unlikeability" is absolutely because the system is rigged. The media has bombarded the airwaves, television, and news print for months about how bad a candidate he is. They've taken every statement out of context and painted him as a monster. He's been called racist, bigoted, xenophobic and every other name out there. He's been likened to Hitler. It's been an all out smear campaign against him by the media, while at the same time they've buried every negative story that comes out about Hillary. They blamed violence at his rallies on him while covering up the fact those riots were bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

As for the voter fraud, it's alive and well. In tight races, a few thousand votes can determine a winner. It won't take millions of votes to change the election. A few thousand votes in a swing state or two could change the election. Why is it that Dems constantly say there is no fraud and Pubs constantly cry there is (even with evidence of illegals voting, dead voting, etc)? It's because the fraud helps the Dems. If the fraud benefitted Pub candidates, the left would be all over voter ID requirements.

He's right. The system IS rigged from top to bottom.

[HokieJoe]

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 would argue that much of his "unlikeability" is absolutely because the system is rigged. The media has bombarded the airwaves, television, and news print for months about how bad a candidate he is. They've taken every statement out of context and painted him as a monster. He's been called racist, bigoted, xenophobic and every other name out there. He's been likened to Hitler. It's been an all out smear campaign against him by the media, while at the same time they've buried every negative story that comes out about Hillary. They blamed violence at his rallies on him while covering up the fact those riots were bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

As for the voter fraud, it's alive and well. In tight races, a few thousand votes can determine a winner. It won't take millions of votes to change the election. A few thousand votes in a swing state or two could change the election. Why is it that Dems constantly say there is no fraud and Pubs constantly cry there is (even with evidence of illegals voting, dead voting, etc)? It's because the fraud helps the Dems. If the fraud benefitted Pub candidates, the left would be all over voter ID requirements.

He's right. The system IS rigged from top to bottom.

Yup!

[absolutvt03]

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 would argue that much of his "unlikeability" is absolutely because the system is rigged. The media has bombarded the airwaves, television, and news print for months about how bad a candidate he is. They've taken every statement out of context and painted him as a monster. He's been called racist, bigoted, xenophobic and every other name out there. He's been likened to Hitler. It's been an all out smear campaign against him by the media, while at the same time they've buried every negative story that comes out about Hillary. They blamed violence at his rallies on him while covering up the fact those riots were bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

As for the voter fraud, it's alive and well. In tight races, a few thousand votes can determine a winner. It won't take millions of votes to change the election. A few thousand votes in a swing state or two could change the election. Why is it that Dems constantly say there is no fraud and Pubs constantly cry there is (even with evidence of illegals voting, dead voting, etc)? It's because the fraud helps the Dems. If the fraud benefitted Pub candidates, the left would be all over voter ID requirements.

He's right. The system IS rigged from top to bottom.

Again you downplay (or in this case actually completely neglect) Trump's role and responsibility in all this. He's been called a "racist, bigoted, and xenophobic" because he's said racist, bigoted, and xenophobic things. He's been criticized for his attitude and comments towards women... because of his attitude and comments towards women. How are you not getting that? How is it "biased" to report something the candidate himself has said or done? Isn't that a more plausible explanation than whining about the system being "rigged". Trump is a bad candidate because of his own words and actions as well as the fact that he seems to have very few concrete ideas or details and has changed his position on things multiple times in a day. It's not the media's fault for covering that. People here like to talk about personal responsibility but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump.

[HokieJoe]

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 would argue that much of his "unlikeability" is absolutely because the system is rigged. The media has bombarded the airwaves, television, and news print for months about how bad a candidate he is. They've taken every statement out of context and painted him as a monster. He's been called racist, bigoted, xenophobic and every other name out there. He's been likened to Hitler. It's been an all out smear campaign against him by the media, while at the same time they've buried every negative story that comes out about Hillary. They blamed violence at his rallies on him while covering up the fact those riots were bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

As for the voter fraud, it's alive and well. In tight races, a few thousand votes can determine a winner. It won't take millions of votes to change the election. A few thousand votes in a swing state or two could change the election. Why is it that Dems constantly say there is no fraud and Pubs constantly cry there is (even with evidence of illegals voting, dead voting, etc)? It's because the fraud helps the Dems. If the fraud benefitted Pub candidates, the left would be all over voter ID requirements.

He's right. The system IS rigged from top to bottom.

Again you downplay (or in this case actually completely neglect) Trump's role and responsibility in all this. He's been called a "racist, bigoted, and xenophobic" because he's said racist, bigoted, and xenophobic things. He's been criticized for his attitude and comments towards women... because of his attitude and comments towards women. How are you not getting that? How is it "biased" to report something the candidate himself has said or done? Isn't that a more plausible explanation than whining about the system being "rigged". Trump is a bad candidate because of his own words and actions. It's not the media's fault for covering that. People here like to talk about personal responsibility but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump.

No one here is arguing that Trump isn't often his own worst enemy. Hillary is her own worst enemy as well. Yet, the difference in press coverage of the two is stark. Stark, as in bereft of context or gravity. Clinton should be barred from holding public office because of HER actions. She's lawless, and vote for her is a vote for a banana republic. A vote for Trump may feel slimey, but I'm comfortable n the thought that I won't be casting my vote for a public official who knowingly broke federal law.

[absolutvt03]

No one here is arguing that Trump isn't often his worst enemy. Hillary is her own worst enemy as well. Yet, the difference in press coverage of the two is stark. Stark, as in bereft of context or gravity. Clinton should be barred from holding public office because of HER actions. She's lawless, and vote for her is a vote for a banana republic. A vote for Trump may feel slimey, but I'm comfortable n the thought that I won't be casting my vote for a public official who knowingly broke federal law.

Actually that's exactly what the original post was arguing. That's what my initial post was about. The idea that if Trump loses it won't be "fair and square". That the system is "rigged" and the proof is that the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history is losing an election. And you keep talking about your vote almost like you're trying to convince yourself. I honestly couldn't care less who you (or anyone here) is voting for or why. That's your choice I don't need an explanation.

[burgrugby]

Again you downplay (or in this case actually completely neglect) Trump's role and responsibility in all this. He's been called a "racist, bigoted, and xenophobic" because he's said racist, bigoted, and xenophobic things. He's been criticized for his attitude and comments towards women... because of his attitude and comments towards women. How are you not getting that? How is it "biased" to report something the candidate himself has said or done? Isn't that a more plausible explanation than whining about the system being "rigged". Trump is a bad candidate because of his own words and actions as well as the fact that he seems to have very few concrete ideas or details and has changed his position on things multiple times in a day. It's not the media's fault for covering that. People here like to talk about personal responsibility but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump.

Because I've actually listened to the whole context of what Trump said. A few examples...

Trump was talking about ILLEGAL Mexicans when he said they are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. He also said and many of them are good people. The fact is, MANY of them do come here and commit atrocities. Of course the news media reported he called ALL Mexican immigrants murderers, rapists and drug dealers. MEDIA BIAS

Trump said he wanted to stop immigration from Muslim Countries that do not like the west until a system is put into place to properly vet them. The fact is, our intelligence community has stated that terrorists plan to infiltrate immigrants and refugees to gain access to the Country to carry out attacks. We owe nothing to those countries to put their citizens above our own. Of course the media blew it up and reported he wants ALL Muslim immigration stopped and ALL Muslims deported from the US. MEDIA BIAS

Trumps attitude towards women... I assume you are referring to the "tape"? Any honest heterosexual male has bragged the same types of things in the company of friends and not meant a single word of it. I've heard guys talking amongst themselves about how hot a woman was and saying things like "Man, I'd bend her over and tap that ___" or "The things I'd do to that ___". It's friggin guy talk. It's stuff guys say to each other when they're alone that they'd never utter in public or in front of their girlfriends/wives. Did he ever actually do any of that? No one knows. Again, the media blows it out of proportion and runs a week of 24/7 talk about how Trump sexually assaults women. When it comes to employing women, he has a larger number of female executives working for his company than the majority of his peers/competitors. Looks to me like his actions speak more about his thoughts on women versus what he said among what he thought were a group of guys bragging to one another. MEDIA BIAS

The list goes on and on and on...

[awesome guy]

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 would argue that much of his "unlikeability" is absolutely because the system is rigged. The media has bombarded the airwaves, television, and news print for months about how bad a candidate he is. They've taken every statement out of context and painted him as a monster. He's been called racist, bigoted, xenophobic and every other name out there. He's been likened to Hitler. It's been an all out smear campaign against him by the media, while at the same time they've buried every negative story that comes out about Hillary. They blamed violence at his rallies on him while covering up the fact those riots were bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

As for the voter fraud, it's alive and well. In tight races, a few thousand votes can determine a winner. It won't take millions of votes to change the election. A few thousand votes in a swing state or two could change the election. Why is it that Dems constantly say there is no fraud and Pubs constantly cry there is (even with evidence of illegals voting, dead voting, etc)? It's because the fraud helps the Dems. If the fraud benefitted Pub candidates, the left would be all over voter ID requirements.

He's right. The system IS rigged from top to bottom.

Again you downplay (or in this case actually completely neglect) Trump's role and responsibility in all this. He's been called a "racist, bigoted, and xenophobic" because he's said racist, bigoted, and xenophobic things. He's been criticized for his attitude and comments towards women... because of his attitude and comments towards women. How are you not getting that? How is it "biased" to report something the candidate himself has said or done? Isn't that a more plausible explanation than whining about the system being "rigged". Trump is a bad candidate because of his own words and actions. It's not the media's fault for covering that. People here like to talk about personal responsibility but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump.

No one here is arguing that Trump isn't often his own worst enemy. Hillary is her own worst enemy as well. Yet, the difference in press coverage of the two is stark. Stark, as in bereft of context or gravity. Clinton should be barred from holding public office because of HER actions. She's lawless, and vote for her is a vote for a banana republic. A vote for Trump may feel slimey, but I'm comfortable n the thought that I won't be casting my vote for a public official who knowingly broke federal law.

Yep. And only am I not voting for a crook, I'm voting to ensure she doesn't win and will face justice. She and Obama need to be jailed to show the elites that the law applies to them too. Otherwise the fundamental idea of all being equal under the law is destroyed forever. The left always views that idea through the prism of the poor while ignoring their very own leaders continually violating it. They're supporting lawlessness and criminal behavior because winning is all they care about, not any of their puppets like the poor or minorities. They just want a space to set up their boutique and sell public policy to the highest bidder.

[absolutvt03]

Again you downplay (or in this case actually completely neglect) Trump's role and responsibility in all this. He's been called a "racist, bigoted, and xenophobic" because he's said racist, bigoted, and xenophobic things. He's been criticized for his attitude and comments towards women... because of his attitude and comments towards women. How are you not getting that? How is it "biased" to report something the candidate himself has said or done? Isn't that a more plausible explanation than whining about the system being "rigged". Trump is a bad candidate because of his own words and actions as well as the fact that he seems to have very few concrete ideas or details and has changed his position on things multiple times in a day. It's not the media's fault for covering that. People here like to talk about personal responsibility but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump.

Because I've actually listened to the whole context of what Trump said. A few examples...

Trump was talking about ILLEGAL Mexicans when he said they are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. He also said and many of them are good people. The fact is, MANY of them do come here and commit atrocities. Of course the news media reported he called ALL Mexican immigrants murderers, rapists and drug dealers. MEDIA BIAS

Trump said he wanted to stop immigration from Muslim Countries that do not like the west until a system is put into place to properly vet them. The fact is, our intelligence community has stated that terrorists plan to infiltrate immigrants and refugees to gain access to the Country to carry out attacks. We owe nothing to those countries to put their citizens above our own. Of course the media blew it up and reported he wants ALL Muslim immigration stopped and ALL Muslims deported from the US. MEDIA BIAS

Trumps attitude towards women... I assume you are referring to the "tape"? Any honest heterosexual male has bragged the same types of things in the company of friends and not meant a single word of it. I've heard guys talking amongst themselves about how hot a woman was and saying things like "Man, I'd bend her over and tap that ___" or "The things I'd do to that ___". It's friggin guy talk. It's stuff guys say to each other when they're alone that they'd never utter in public or in front of their girlfriends/wives. Did he ever actually do any of that? No one knows. Again, the media blows it out of proportion and runs a week of 24/7 talk about how Trump sexually assaults women. When it comes to employing women, he has a larger number of female executives working for his company than the majority of his peers/competitors. Looks to me like his actions speak more about his thoughts on women versus what he said among what he thought were a group of guys bragging to one another. MEDIA BIAS

The list goes on and on and on...

There's certainly some bias here but I'm not sure it's from the media...

[burgrugby]

That the system is "rigged" and the proof is that the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history is losing an election.

Your statement just proved the bias... i.e. the system is rigged.

Trump's being crucified for things he's said that her husband has done and she has defended. She and her husband are the most corrupt candidates in Presidential history. She's broken the law and covered it up. Her campaign has broken laws and covered them up. The most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history SHOULD be Clinton! Between her and Trump, she has done FAR more to deserve that title. The fact is the media has propped her up, buried her corruption and bombarded Trump with negativity is what put him in that category. If that's not rigging the system, I don't know what is.

[absolutvt03]

That the system is "rigged" and the proof is that the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history is losing an election.

Your statement just proved the bias... i.e. the system is rigged.

Trump's being crucified for things he's said that her husband has done and she has defended. She and her husband are the most corrupt candidates in Presidential history. She's broken the law and covered it up. Her campaign has broken laws and covered them up. The most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history SHOULD be Clinton! Between her and Trump, she has done FAR more to deserve that title. The fact is the media has propped her up, buried her corruption and bombarded Trump with negativity is what put him in that category. If that's not rigging the system, I don't know what is.

Sorry but you don't get to tell other people who they "should" like. That's a totally subjective measure. Just because YOU personally think one thing doesn't mean everyone else should. You're the one showing your bias here.

ETA: Trump was highly disliked during the primaries as well FWIW. Maybe instead of blaming everyone else you should look at the person at the center of it all?

[awesome guy]

That the system is "rigged" and the proof is that the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history is losing an election.

Your statement just proved the bias... i.e. the system is rigged.

Trump's being crucified for things he's said that her husband has done and she has defended. She and her husband are the most corrupt candidates in Presidential history. She's broken the law and covered it up. Her campaign has broken laws and covered them up. The most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history SHOULD be Clinton! Between her and Trump, she has done FAR more to deserve that title. The fact is the media has propped her up, buried her corruption and bombarded Trump with negativity is what put him in that category. If that's not rigging the system, I don't know what is.

bingo

[VisorBoy]

That the system is "rigged" and the proof is that the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history is losing an election.

Your statement just proved the bias... i.e. the system is rigged.

Trump's being crucified for things he's said that her husband has done and she has defended. She and her husband are the most corrupt candidates in Presidential history. She's broken the law and covered it up. Her campaign has broken laws and covered them up. The most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history SHOULD be Clinton! Between her and Trump, she has done FAR more to deserve that title. The fact is the media has propped her up, buried her corruption and bombarded Trump with negativity is what put him in that category. If that's not rigging the system, I don't know what is.

WADR, you're basing a conspiratorial conclusion on your own opinions about the candidates as well as what others should or shouldn't believe. That's no way to prove the system is rigged.

[burgrugby]

Sorry but you don't get to tell other people who they "should" like.

I agree. But before they can make that decision, they "should" at least be aware of all the facts. The majority of those deciding Trump is "the most unlikeable candidate in Presidential history" only hear snippets on the evening news at most and are extremely misinformed of ALL of the facts. I would bet the majority of them have no idea what's come out in the wikileaks, has ever heard of Project Veritas, or has ever heard more than one or two cherry picked sentences from a Trump speech.

I LOVE Brazille's defense by saying that information is stolen so people should disregard it because it was never meant to be heard publically. Maybe if The Donald could use the same excuse for his locker room rant, he'd be much more likeable in people's eyes.