In what way is the election rigged?

codeman wrote:

Idiocracy wrote:

Being a right wing conservative is a psychological disorder. It's clear that these people lack a basic command of how to interpret reality.

They just live in an alternate reality, one fueled by anger, hatred, exclusion, fantasy, and lies.

You're basically describing all political parties you know. But you're too gullible to figure that out because you still cheer for a tribe.

Obama wrote:

off base wrote:

On the surface that makes sense. The reason some people call it racist is that the percentage of minorities without cars or drivers licences is much higher than whites. I know there are other forms of ID, but many poor people in cities do not have IDs.

Ok, assuming that's even true, the solution is: get these people ID's. Not, let it be a free for all. This should be obvious.

Reducing every complexity into race is simplistic and pushes people away from solving the real problems.

I'm not saying it is a racist, I was explaining why some people say it is racist. I do think it is discriminatory. If there is a way to get everyone an ID, that would be great, but that needs to happen BEFORE you require an ID to vote.

So far I have not heard one plausible example of how voter fraud could cause the election to be rigged. So let's kill this conspiracy theory.

Obama wrote:

off base wrote:

On the surface that makes sense. The reason some people call it racist is that the percentage of minorities without cars or drivers licences is much higher than whites. I know there are other forms of ID, but many poor people in cities do not have IDs.

Ok, assuming that's even true, the solution is: get these people ID's. Not, let it be a free for all. This should be obvious.

Reducing every complexity into race is simplistic and pushes people away from solving the real problems.

That's the lib way, solving real problems wouldn't help them get elected as easily as dividing the country based on race and faux outrage.

Allowing people to vote without ID's discredits our entire election process, its a joke. The amount of fraud is almost hilarious.

rojo wrote:

One other thing, have you heard much about GOP headquarters in NC being firebombed? If this happened to the Dems, you'd see it being covered as MAJOR news - the crazy Trump supporters etc. Since it's fromm the left, you don't hear much of anything.

In terms of it being rigged, I think one thing that annoys the hell out of the right is why in the hell is it viewed as racist to require an ID to vote? If I want to buy a beer, I have to an ID. If there are no shenanigans going on, an ID requirement seems perfectly reasonable.

In the recent mayoral election here in Baltimore, the election wasn't certified for days due to irregularities.

Voter ID laws would be reasonable if there were reasonable means for people that don't have ID to get one. No one thinks that having to prove who you are when voting is a big deal, but what they do think is wrong is that people are prevented from getting ID's.

Being butthurt because you ran a bad campaign is not the same as the election being rigged.

I am amazed by people who think that when things work out for them, it is due to their brains and hard work. But when their brains and hard work fail to get the job done, they suddenly see the system around them, and blame it.

How is the election rigged? Mainstream media is in the tank for Clinton. After one of the more damning Wikileaks releases, I decided to see if CNN covered it. It was not on the main page. After scrolling through several pages, I was able to find one very generically titled article that was barely a paragraph long.

This morning, I did an search for Wikileaks site:cnn.com and the same search on Fox News. There were three times more references to Wikileaks on Fox. I did the same for Wikileaks Podesta site:CNN.com and found similar results... 70% less coverage on CNN.

If you plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, you really should read these Wikileaks. They expose multiple lies. Obama corresponded with her using an alias. A blatant disregard for classified information. Manipulations of the media. Liberal media attending a private meeting with Clinton with no conservative media invited.

And her ineptness. One Clinton advisor Neera Tanden wrote, “It worries me more that she doesn’t seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment,”

Wow... that should get national media coverage, right? Nope. Four hits for Wikileaks Neera site:CNN.com. Meanwhile, the internet is all over it with over 36,000 hits and counting.

The media can influence public opinion. They can't rig an election. Also, the fact that you were able to do Google searches on Fox vs CNN shows that there are indeed different options for getting your news. Nobody is making you watch CNN.

Thats a simpleton's way of looking at it. The media has an obligation to provide information to the public. They should not manipulate information and choose what they do or do not share. They are more than happy to discuss Trump, including sharing lies as if they are news. Yet when a huge, disgusting, scandal about clinton comes out you can't find it covered. A large chunk of America doesn't know about it. Its sickening, pathetic, and small.

the problem I am having here is the boy crying wolf issue. The right wing has lied about so many things so egregiously and shamelessly that I honestly don't believe a word they say.

So I can't trust any polemic source from the right wing. They have been proven to be utter contemptible liars. Maybe they are right on the wikileaks things. But I can't trust right wing sources. And I dont' have the ability to put the emails into context. So I have to stay with the mainstream because they have a record of being honest.

what a winy turd wrote:

Thats a simpleton's way of looking at it. The media has an obligation to provide information to the public. They should not manipulate information and choose what they do or do not share. .

Why in the world would you think this? The Media is really just a lot of companies trying to sell a product, whether that is newspapers or eyeballs.

rojo wrote:

If you want the #1 example of what Trump means that the election is rigged, look at the post-debate reaction to him saying he'd "look at it at the time" to decide if he'll accept the election results.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7784127

That's exactly what Al Gore did in 2000 and yet the media is acting like Trump is a monster for saying it.

You have lost whatever small measure of decency that you may have once possessed.

You are a liar.

Disgusting.

off base wrote:

The media can influence public opinion. They can't rig an election. Nobody is making you watch CNN.

I agree with you that the media can't technically "rig" the election, but they do have tremendous power to influence the outcome. The collusion against Trump is unethical and flies in the face of journalistic integrity. I can't stand Trump, but I find it insulting that the major outlets think I'm so gullible. And I despise them for abandoning the code of ethics that used to mean something to journalists.

NPR is a great example. Of all the news outlets, NPR should be the standard for unbiased reporting. Have you read their fact checks of the debates? If not, glance through the first debate here:

Trump received major scrutiny (as he should) while there are long blocks of Hillary's arguments that passed through without a comment. Often, the "fact checking" on Trump wasn't really fact checking at all. Consider this statement from Trump:

"You see that [Ford's] small car division is leaving."

NPR fact check: "Ford CEO Mark Fields says zero jobs will be lost in Michigan because Ford will build two new vehicles at that plant."

NPR's fact check is a strawman, but it makes it look like Trump lied. His point is that the new jobs created by Ford are being lost to Mexico, and this is a valid argument. Why isn't Ford building its new plant in the US? We are in fact losing jobs to Mexico.

You see this sort of strawman fact check more than once on Trump's comments, but the same is not done to Hillary.

This is one example among many. And you can't escape it because this "defeat Trump at all costs" mentality has pervaded the mainstream media. Oh, I can watch something else? Like what, Fox? No thank you. Right-wing bias doesn't make me feel any better. There isn't an unbiased news source anymore.

Hillary is the worst DNC candidate of all time. I would appreciate it if the media would acknowledge this.

So yes, off base, the media can't technically rig the election. But flooding their news outlets with overwhelming anti-Trump rhetoric has a tremendous influence on independent voters, and it is unethical journalism. Do you disagree?

so show us statements from HRC that should have been factchecked by NPR but weren't.

+1 million

One interesting point that Rush Limbaugh is making right now.

The Dems have been complaining for days about how the Russians are trying to inluence (rig) the election for Trump with the hacked emails.

Very ironic.

-1

I'm still waiting to be shown where NPR should have factchecked HRC but didn't.

Trump just lies and dissembles and speaks in obtuse ways. He deserves to be factchecked more than HRC. He lies more, he misleads more, he omits more.

jewbacca wrote:

So yes, off base, the media can't technically rig the election. But flooding their news outlets with overwhelming anti-Trump rhetoric has a tremendous influence on independent voters, and it is unethical journalism. Do you disagree?

I do agree that if what you say is true, it would be unethical journalism. I'm not convinced it is true though.

Trump is handing the media stories on a silver platter. His biggest enemy is his own words. The media has become very sensationalistic over the years and that is not a good thing, but Trump is a darling to that type of news.

A lot of people have pointed to media not reporting more on WikiLeaks as being bias. The problem with that is WikiLeaks has only released negative things about Clinton and nothing about Trump. That would be like getting mad at ABC for not covering a story released by InfoWars.

Another thing pointing away from media bias is Clinton's approval rating. It has plummeted since she started running for President. She had a 65% approval rating when she was Secretary of State and last I saw she was at 41% approval. I don't remember where I saw this, but she was at one point listed as the 2nd most respected political figure in the country. That would certainly not be the case today.

off base wrote:

Nobody is making you watch CNN.

Given the clinton news network's declining viewership over the course of this election year, you may be right.