Trump's election-rigging charges

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Firstly, Trump is not simply saying that there is a partisan media. He's alleging literal electoral fraud.

    Secondly, the media bias argument is complex, depends how you measure it, and is somewhat different between the primaries and the general election, but overall the media's de facto bias has been in favour of Trump. Particularly in the primaries, Trump got shedloads of free media attention, broadcasts of his rallies that went on for hours (unlike the other GOP candidates), he was given a free pass on blatantly false claims, like Iraq. In short, it's sensationalist coverage - they covered Trump more because they think he's more interesting to cover/gets better ratings/etc. To a certain level that has a positive effect, as it got him attention and notice throughout the primaries. Now it's have a negative effect because he's essentially hit his ceiling of support.
    I would argue that it would be difficult for you to find positive media attention during the primaries.

    He was able to spin negative media attention in to a positive. He wasn't given a free pass on his lies by the media - Just the public. The media reported every lie he told(And he told many) while pretending that Hillary was glossed over.

    Promising favour to banks in exchange for support is, in my opinion, about the largest betrayal you can have of your electorate. Not that I'd ever vote for Trump, but why people aren't honestly considering third party candidates just confuses me.

    "Third parties can't win!"
    "But why?"
    "Because nobody will vote for them."
    "But they can if you do vote for them."
    "If I do that, then the other side wins."
    "Unless the third party wins."
    "Third parties can't win!"
    "But why?"

    and so on and so forth. It's self-defeating and this is the greatest argument for third party votes I have seen since the Whigs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I would argue that it would be difficult for you to find positive media attention during the primaries.

    He was able to spin negative media attention in to a positive. He wasn't given a free pass on his lies by the media - Just the public. The media reported every lie he told(And he told many) while pretending that Hillary was glossed over.

    Promising favour to banks in exchange for support is, in my opinion, about the largest betrayal you can have of your electorate. Not that I'd ever vote for Trump, but why people aren't honestly considering third party candidates just confuses me.

    "Third parties can't win!"
    "But why?"
    "Because nobody will vote for them."
    "But they can if you do vote for them."
    "If I do that, then the other side wins."
    "Unless the third party wins."
    "Third parties can't win!"
    "But why?"

    and so on and so forth. It's self-defeating and this is the greatest argument for third party votes I have seen since the Whigs.
    Trump has gotten positive coverage from a reliable set from the beginning, including Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Sousa, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Matt Drudge, Laura Ingraham, and others, such as Brietbart. They are all reactionary conspiracy theorists and dog-whistle racists with little credibility outside of their small circles. Their approval has verged on propaganda.

    You obviously haven't looked at the people running under 3rd Party banners. Gary Johnson is a twit, he has never even heard of Aleppo. Jill Stein is hardly better, she who says getting Trump to win is the best way to defeat him. If they were better, more people would vote for them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    Trump has gotten positive coverage from a reliable set from the beginning, including Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Sousa, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Matt Drudge, Laura Ingraham, and others, such as Brietbart. They are all reactionary conspiracy theorists and dog-whistle racists with little credibility outside of their small circles. Their approval has verged on propaganda.

    You obviously haven't looked at the people running under 3rd Party banners. Gary Johnson is a twit, he has never even heard of Aleppo. Jill Stein is hardly better, she who says getting Trump to win is the best way to defeat him. If they were better, more people would vote for them.

    So you would rather vote for a climate change denier who has promised to be in Wall Street's pocket?

    I would suggest not knowing Aleppo is certainly less bad than that. I would also wager that, up until Gary Johnson made his 'gaffe' that the vast majority of Americans had no idea what Aleppo was.

    Jill Stein, on the other hand, is very similar to Bernie Saunders.

    Both are better candidates than either mainstream candidates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    So you would rather vote for a climate change denier who has promised to be in Wall Street's pocket?

    I would suggest not knowing Aleppo is certainly less bad than that. I would also wager that, up until Gary Johnson made his 'gaffe' that the vast majority of Americans had no idea what Aleppo was.

    Jill Stein, on the other hand, is very similar to Bernie Saunders.

    Both are better candidates than either mainstream candidates.
    Both are lamentably out of their depth. Many Americans might not know what Aleppo is, but he is running for the presidency - it is pathetic.

    The charge that Hillary is "in the pocket of Wall Street" is also an idiotic smear. She is a normal politician by any standard and is not corrupt. Here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/op...dishonest.html

    I don't know where you get that she is a climate denier, but it is dead flat wrong. Read this:
    http://fortune.com/2016/10/11/hillar...limate-change/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY

    Groups funded by the Hillary campaign and dnc admit to voter fraud.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    So you would rather vote for a climate change denier who has promised to be in Wall Street's pocket?

    I would suggest not knowing Aleppo is certainly less bad than that. I would also wager that, up until Gary Johnson made his 'gaffe' that the vast majority of Americans had no idea what Aleppo was.

    Jill Stein, on the other hand, is very similar to Bernie Saunders.

    Both are better candidates than either mainstream candidates.
    *Sanders

    Before I go any further, I would like to say that out of the four (Johnson, Stein, Clinton and Trump) I would go for Clinton out of the four as she has the ideals I most agree with. However, if Sanders had gotten the nomination, I would have sided with him largely because again of his ideals, but also because I would have believed that he would have truly tried (even if he failed, he would have tried) to accomplish his goals. I say this in order to clarify any bias I might have.

    The thread starter has already adressed some of the points you make, so I'll stick with this. I've just come from watching the latest Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode, the main segment of which covers Third Parties. I recommend watching it before you support either Stein or Johnson. The thing I took most out of it is that Stein has far too little political experience, Johnson would do many things I consider intolerable, and both have little detail in their proposals. I will put the Youtube link for the segment from their official website below, but apparently I cannot watch it in my country (the UK). Maybe you can, or find the segment elsewhere. Either way, I repeat: I would watch it and do research before supporting either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

    As for the original thread topic, my view is this: his accusations that the election is rigged is the most frightening long-term thing I think Trump is doing and will ever do (apart from, if he gets into the White House, a potential nuclear war with someone because they annoyed him). It undermines democracy and creates distrust of the system. I am afraid of this. The wound is already deep, and I'm afraid it will take a long time to heal, and of the things that will happen in the healing; I'm even more afraid if it never does.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    HERE IS POSSIBLE PROOF:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...trump-ballots/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    Both are lamentably out of their depth. Many Americans might not know what Aleppo is, but he is running for the presidency - it is pathetic.

    The charge that Hillary is "in the pocket of Wall Street" is also an idiotic smear. She is a normal politician by any standard and is not corrupt. Here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/op...dishonest.html

    I don't know where you get that she is a climate denier, but it is dead flat wrong. Read this:
    http://fortune.com/2016/10/11/hillar...limate-change/
    If by 'Idiotic smear' you mean, 'True', then yes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy..._12533540.html
    You'll note the WikiLeaks articles referred to several things, if you bothered to read them, including referring to the Climate crowd as 'Climate idiots'.

    And you'll also note that she also said she wanted Wall Street to give Wall Street regulations as well as admitted she had 'Public and private' stances.

    Your girl is not who you think she is if you are denying this. That's cool - You don't want to acknowledge it. That's fine, too.

    But the US would be far better off with a third party.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You take the actions of an individual as proof of a national conspiracy that would throw an election of 110 million voters? With a decentralized administration, many of which are republican run?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    You take the actions of an individual as proof of a national conspiracy that would throw an election of 110 million voters? With a decentralized administration, many of which are republican run?
    What about the comments from groups funded by the dnc and the Hillary campaign about how to get voters brought into the state to vote?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    You take the actions of an individual as proof of a national conspiracy that would throw an election of 110 million voters? With a decentralized administration, many of which are republican run?
    Well this could be 1 of many people actually doing this (Just that they opened up on twitter)!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    If by 'Idiotic smear' you mean, 'True', then yes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy..._12533540.html
    You'll note the WikiLeaks articles referred to several things, if you bothered to read them, including referring to the Climate crowd as 'Climate idiots'.

    And you'll also note that she also said she wanted Wall Street to give Wall Street regulations as well as admitted she had 'Public and private' stances.

    Your girl is not who you think she is if you are denying this. That's cool - You don't want to acknowledge it. That's fine, too.

    But the US would be far better off with a third party.
    The material in Wikileak releases have come up with nothing surprising, esp when you read them in context. I have not taken the time to read them all, there are thousands of pages, but I have read articles about them.

    I am a strong Hillary supporter, but yes, she has made mistakes. She is certainly better than the alternatives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fablereader)
    *Sanders

    Before I go any further, I would like to say that out of the four (Johnson, Stein, Clinton and Trump) I would go for Clinton out of the four as she has the ideals I most agree with. However, if Sanders had gotten the nomination, I would have sided with him largely because again of his ideals, but also because I would have believed that he would have truly tried (even if he failed, he would have tried) to accomplish his goals. I say this in order to clarify any bias I might have.

    The thread starter has already adressed some of the points you make, so I'll stick with this. I've just come from watching the latest Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode, the main segment of which covers Third Parties. I recommend watching it before you support either Stein or Johnson. The thing I took most out of it is that Stein has far too little political experience, Johnson would do many things I consider intolerable, and both have little detail in their proposals. I will put the Youtube link for the segment from their official website below, but apparently I cannot watch it in my country (the UK). Maybe you can, or find the segment elsewhere. Either way, I repeat: I would watch it and do research before supporting either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

    As for the original thread topic, my view is this: his accusations that the election is rigged is the most frightening long-term thing I think Trump is doing and will ever do (apart from, if he gets into the White House, a potential nuclear war with someone because they annoyed him). It undermines democracy and creates distrust of the system. I am afraid of this. The wound is already deep, and I'm afraid it will take a long time to heal, and of the things that will happen in the healing; I'm even more afraid if it never does.
    Do you not find it scary that with the comments from groups funded by the dnc and the Hillary campaign in the YouTube video I posted he could be right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Well this could be 1 of many people actually doing this (Just that they opened up on twitter)!
    One moron admitting to doing something stupid and illegal is most likely not an indicator of an organised effort to destroy Trump votes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    The material in Wikileak releases have come up with nothing surprising, esp when you read them in context. I have not taken the time to read them all, there are thousands of pages, but I have read articles about them.

    I am a strong Hillary supporter, but yes, she has made mistakes. She is certainly better than the alternatives.
    That's cool. You're a Democrat - You were born a Democrat and you'll die a Democrat. The Wikileaks weren't for people like you. They were for people who have a chance to change. You are the Left equivalent of a Donald Trump supporter and there are people like you on the Conservative side. It's one of the main problems I have with American politics in general.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    One moron admitting to doing something stupid and illegal is most likely not an indicator of an organised effort to destroy Trump votes.
    How about more morons:

    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Do you not find it scary that with the comments from groups funded by the dnc and the Hillary campaign in the YouTube video I posted he could be right?
    I distrust this source. He has been known to selectively use footage to present misleading ideas. For example, he did so in the ACORN scandal (Wikipedia article here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_...os_controversy), where he heavily edited footage to make it seem like ACORN, which was dedicated to social issues such as voter registration and health care among low- and moderate-income families, was conducting criminal activities. These charged were cleared, but not before causing ACORN to basically shut down everything. This and other items do not make this source appear trustworthy.
    ,
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fablereader)
    I distrust this source. He has been known to selectively use footage to present misleading ideas. For example, he did so in the ACORN scandal (Wikipedia article here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_...os_controversy), where he heavily edited footage to make it seem like ACORN, which was dedicated to social issues such as voter registration and health care among low- and moderate-income families, was conducting criminal activities. These charged were cleared, but not before causing ACORN to basically shut down everything. This and other items do not make this source appear trustworthy.
    ,
    What part of the it are you disputing? The connections to the dnc or the fact the groups have sent people to incite violence and commit voter fraud?

    What did you think about trumps comments on ptsd? The media clearly misled the public on that and there is evidence of it here you just dislike what has been said.

    And from what I have heard ACORN shutting down was not to do with his video, and even a highly edited video does not mean they did not say what they have said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    That's cool. You're a Democrat - You were born a Democrat and you'll die a Democrat. The Wikileaks weren't for people like you. They were for people who have a chance to change. You are the Left equivalent of a Donald Trump supporter and there are people like you on the Conservative side. It's one of the main problems I have with American politics in general.
    Actually, I am a conservative democract, but don't let that stop you from reducing me to a caricature. Hillary has all the skills and foibles of a traditional politician. She has been attacked in a concerted manner for 25 years, creating - like you seem to have done - a caricature.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What part of the it are you disputing? The connections to the dnc or the fact the groups have sent people to incite violence and commit voter fraud?

    What did you think about trumps comments on ptsd? The media clearly misled the public on that and there is evidence of it here you just dislike what has been said.

    And from what I have heard ACORN shutting down was not to do with his video, and even a highly edited video does not mean they did not say what they have said.
    That guy was long ago discredited. There is proof that he crosses too many lines with lies and provocation, then taking comments out of context. Viz:
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...stings-himself
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.