Donald Trump for President Thread

[neil999]

Ok it's not exactly the same. But here's some more times democrats talked about rigged elections.

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount. Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.

2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines. While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edwards said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.

3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journalpointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.


4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system. Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterlythat congressional elections were “rigged” against them.

5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...times-democrats-claimed-u-s-elections-rigged/

Not sure if you realise you have quoted breitbart?

 

[ilikecheese]

Ok it's not exactly the same. But here's some more times democrats talked about rigged elections.

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount. Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.

2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines. While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edwards said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.

3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journalpointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.


4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system. Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterlythat congressional elections were “rigged” against them.

5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...times-democrats-claimed-u-s-elections-rigged/

And how does any of that change my opinion that what Trump is doing is a danger to our democracy?

He has gone on record saying he may not concede the election, and that he would accept the results of the election if he wins. It is not the same as the examples you've given.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Not sure if you realise you have quoted breitbart?

Are you denying any of the facts they listed?

Basically any news site isn't worthy unless they agree with you. You do know that's called propaganda and indoctrination.

 

[dholliday]

Polls showed that Bush was leading from September onwards
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html

depends which poll and from where people get their info, tho' even going by your link the polls were tighter than it turned out to be in the end. Some also had the idea Kerry was polling ahead or at least that it was near deadheat. I'm going on memory but just had a quick gander:

All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead by 53 to 47 percent

John Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged The 2004 Election


If voters really don't want Trump they shouldn't trust he won't win based on Hillary winning the debates, any polls or what their favourite news site is saying, they should get out and vote. Obama won in 2008 because people got out (he got 7 million more votes than Bush did in 2004).

There's a complacency from the pro-Clinton camp that it's all done and dusted. Trump will likely maintain that unwavering support from the sizable working/rural class and could still end up winning.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Wonder if Trump will accept the result if the republicans retain the House?

 

[dholliday]

Are you denying any of the facts they listed?

Basically any news site isn't worthy unless they agree with you. You do know that's called propaganda and indoctrination.

It's like quoting The Guardian to support a pro-Hillary argument.


So much agenda-spouting from both sides. Sometimes hard for the entertained neutral to see the fence for the trees.

 

[MartyMcFly]

And how does any of that change my opinion that what Trump is doing is a danger to our democracy?

He has gone on record saying he may not concede the election, and that he would accept the results of the election if he wins. It is not the same as the examples you've given.

Because Trump isn't doing anything. The media are making a huge deal over it because Trump was strong when it came to policy. I'm not going to say he won or anything because that depends on what political divide you fall on but he gave a very strong performance and a lot of serious questions were put to Hillary. They don't want the public talking about Hillary and what she has done. They don't even want to talk about her desire for open borders or the fact that she will put up taxes etc

It's all Donald Trump. Make Donald Trump a figure no one in their right mind would vote for and Hillary will essentially walk into the white house unopposed.

 

[MartyMcFly]

It's like quoting The Guardian to support a pro-Hillary argument.


So much agenda-spouting from both sides. Sometimes hard for the entertained neutral to see the fence for the trees.

I have no problem people quoting the Guardian. I read it myself but I can distinguish between when they list facts as opposed to opinions. Facts you can't argue with.

 

[dholliday]

I have no problem people quoting the Guardian. I read it myself but I can distinguish between when they list facts as opposed to opinions. Facts you can't argue with.

But people do...all the time. It's why we have conflict in this world.

 

[ilikecheese]

Because Trump isn't doing anything. The media are making a huge deal over it because Trump was strong when it came to policy. I'm not going to say he won or anything because that depends on what political divide you fall on but he gave a very strong performance and a lot of serious questions were put to Hillary. They don't want the public talking about Hillary and what she has done. They don't even want to talk about her desire for open borders or the fact that she will put up taxes etc

It's all Donald Trump. Make Donald Trump a figure no one in their right mind would vote for and Hillary will essentially walk into the white house unopposed.

He does it to himself by saying outlandish things and frankly dangerous things.

 

[dholliday]

Because Trump isn't doing anything. The media are making a huge deal over it because Trump was strong when it came to policy. I'm not going to say he won or anything because that depends on what political divide you fall on but he gave a very strong performance and a lot of serious questions were put to Hillary. They don't want the public talking about Hillary and what she has done. They don't even want to talk about her desire for open borders or the fact that she will put up taxes etc

It's all Donald Trump. Make Donald Trump a figure no one in their right mind would vote for and Hillary will essentially walk into the white house unopposed.

I disagree somewhat with your first paragraph: objectively Hillary won all three debates, tho' that's not to say she's objectively the better candidate.

I agree much with the bolded last bit. That is the tactic, certainly.

 

[ilikecheese]

I disagree somewhat with your first paragraph: objectively Hillary won all three debates, tho' that's not to say she's objectively the better candidate.

I agree much with the bolded last bit. That is the tactic, certainly.

He's the one turning this election into a reality TV show. If he didn't speak so over the top about everything the media would move on, but it's almost like he just can't help himself by being outrageous and in a way forcing more coverage his way.

 

[MartyMcFly]

He does it to himself by saying outlandish things and frankly dangerous things.

Finally we agree on something. He does but the media then blow everything up for maximum effect while trying their best to hide anything negative about Hillary.

 

[dholliday]

He's the one turning this election into a reality TV show. If he didn't speak so over the top about everything the media would move on, but it's almost like he just can't help himself by being outrageous and in a way forcing more coverage his way.

partly yes, it's his force of personality getting the headlines (and the Twitter followers...he has 3m more than Hillary). That, and the orchestrated campaign to paint him as a misogynist, which is very in vogue these days as a reputation-killer (see also the timing of the allegations vs Julian Assange).


You could argue this force of attention has advantages as well as disadvantages: the pro-Clinton media may be in for a Brexit-like shock if the mass of swing voters don't come out for blue on election day.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I disagree somewhat with your first paragraph: objectively Hillary won all three debates, tho' that's not to say she's objectively the better candidate.

I agree much with the bolded last bit. That is the tactic, certainly.

Donald Trump made two gaffs in the 3rd. Not abiding by the election result and the hombre remark.

Apart from that I thought he won the 3rd debate easily. He layed out what was in store if Hillary is elected and was able to keep hitting her with all the wikileaks including her remarks about open borders. Hillary will leave America in the same state as Merkel will leave Germany. They may never recover from her. Their society may be gone for ever. It will be technically Germany but it's not going to be German. The US will most likely be the same. The belief in individual liberty and responsibility, freedom including that to speech etc. All that is under risk.