Author Topic: The Third Debate (Read 92179 times)

AI Wessex · « **on:** October 19, 2016, 07:14:12 PM »

Getting the popcorn started...

D.W. · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2016, 09:31:57 PM »

I thought race to the bottom was an education criticism. Apparently it applies to the debates this year. I've yelled at both of them so far to shut up.

D.W. · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:18:52 PM »

I can't stand either of them answering questions with, "my opponent says ______". Not sure why but it's become such a pet peve, but it has.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:06:59 PM »

Well, that was interesting. Clinton squibbed out of a few answers, but Trump was Trump, which won't help him with anybody who isn't already supporting him. I thought it was completely outrageous that said he won't commit to accepting the outcome of the election. He's a loony.

Seriati · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:14:07 AM »

Hillary definitely was the stronger performer. Trump is not articulate. Surprised by the moderation letting Hillary go on and on and interrupting Trump constantly.

Still, laughing my ass off, with CNN trying to spin this "issue" of Trump not accepting the results. Have they missed the last 12 years of whining about the "stolen" election in Bush v. Gore.

Van is such a hack.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:23:14 AM »

Florida vote counting law requires a paper ballot recount if the election result is within .5%, which it was. Both sides maneuvered to get the result they wanted. Gore conceded (graciously) after the SC ruling.

Seriati · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:37:14 AM »

Lol, AI. I followed the case from the legal side in depth. There was nothing gracious that occurred there. I don't see anyone involved in trying to get an actual result, they all were trying to change the results.

In any event, the point is that it is total hypocrisy to have people (including on this board) whine about a stolen election for 12 years and act like its disqualifying not to pre-endorse that you'd accept a result. Do you concede that Trump could act just like Gore legitimately in you eyes?

Seriati · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:12:07 AM »

The only thing that sucks to me, is that honestly, this is the only debate that both candidates were attacked by the moderator. When the moderators were in the tank for Hillary, it would have been nice if one went the other way, but Fox is the only one than hit both hard.

Seriati · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:26:42 AM »

Wow, watching Donna Brazile on Megan Kelly, OMG! Dodge and weave!

Greg Davidson · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:51:17 AM »

Chris Wallace had what I felt was a right-leaning framing of the questions, but only to a minor degree. I actually thought that this Fox News person did a better job of asking clear and relevant questions than any of the other moderators. And while he was partially aided by the format, he did a pretty good job of trying to focus both candidates on actually answering the questions.

ScottF · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2016, 02:15:56 AM »

I though Chris Wallace did a decent job at maintaining a modicum of control. I am no Hillary fan but she absolutely obliterated Trump tonight.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2016, 07:59:39 AM »

Quote from: Seriati on October 20, 2016, 12:37:14 AM

Lol, AI. I followed the case from the legal side in depth. There was nothing gracious that occurred there. I don't see anyone involved in trying to get an actual result, they all were trying to change the results.

In any event, the point is that it is total hypocrisy to have people (including on this board) whine about a stolen election for 12 years and act like its disqualifying not to pre-endorse that you'd accept a result. Do you concede that Trump could act just like Gore legitimately in you eyes?

Florida isn't the only state with automatic recount conditions, so if it happens there or elsewhere this time I would expect the candidates to look closely for irregularities that might have tipped the result against them. That's not what Trump is talking about, but nobody really knows what the hell he's saying about almost anything, so I have no idea what to expect from him after he gets schlonged bigly on the 8th.

On Florida, the state did everything possible to make it hard for likely Democratic voters to vote in 2000 and continues to do so. They limit the number of voting booths in the inner cities so that people have to stand in line for up to 4 hours to vote, they have disenfranchised a massive number of ex-felons, and this year the governor tried to cut off voter registration even though a hurricane had disrupted the process. A federal judge just declared "bizarre" and "obscene" a new Florida mail-in ballot law that invalidates a ballot if the signature isn't a perfect match to one on file while allowing ballots that have no signature on file. Gore had every reason to be suspicious of the slender majority that was declared for Bush in 2000. Even so, after the SC made their ruling, Gore said:

Quote

Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto: ''Not under man, but under God and law.'' That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

D.W. · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2016, 08:56:10 AM »

Quote

he only thing that sucks to me, is that honestly, this is the only debate that both candidates were attacked by the moderator.

Self defense, they were both totally out of control.

Quote

I though Chris Wallace did a decent job at maintaining a modicum of control.

I thought it was embarrassing how little control he managed to exert on either of them.

I will say that I thought he leaned slightly right but he did do a good job at being fair and hard on both of them. I just wish they gave moderators a mute button to cut off the mics of the candidates. Then he could cut in, "Sorry the question was..." Or better yet, "What is YOUR answer? We'll let the other candidate speak for themselves."

I know it's important to hold politicians to what they've said in the past but my god, they need to preface any answer (or deflection) with half their time spent explaining how their opponent is horribly wrong on the topic. (or sometimes a totally different topic).

I usually enjoy watching debates. This one just had me yelling, "Shut up! Nobody cares!", repeatedly at my television like a crazy person...

D.W. · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2016, 09:02:57 AM »

I also think Hillary "won" the debate but her dodge / pivot / spinning on the foundation question was just awful. This should have been something easy to dismiss or explain. I thought up several responses right on the spot and she had ages to prep for the question and decided to go with that? What the heck?

All I heard was, "I'm not gonna deny that people bought access, but it was all for a good cause so it's OK!" Now I'm not a fan of hers but I do want her to win, that just seemed to me to be one of her biggest fumbles of the night. Thank God for her opponent not taking advantage of that... There was one other similar question that she totally side stepped but it's slipping my mind. Perhaps it will come to me after I finish my coffee. $:-\$

I wish I could pin down Trump's biggest error... So many to choose from. I guess believing this is still a reality tv show.

ScottF · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2016, 09:16:59 AM »

Honestly if this had been a boxing match I would have been looking for the ref to step in and stop the fight. At one point Trump was going on about something (I think it was during then "nobody has more respect for women than I do" section) and the look on Hillary's face was beyond dismissive, almost...pity?

I was quite certain Clinton would win this a year ago but never imagined it would end up being the complete demolition it's turned out to be.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #15 on:** October 20, 2016, 09:24:52 AM »

Quote

I also think Hillary "won" the debate but her dodge / pivot / spinning on the foundation question was just awful. This should have been something easy to dismiss or explain. I thought up several responses right on the spot and she had ages to prep for the question and decided to go with that? What the heck?

I was thinking the same thing. She has elsewhere said emphatically that people tried to gain access in a quid pro quo exchange but that they didn't get the audience they sought. OTOH, nothing she would have said would have convinced anyone that the CF isn't corrupt, since they've already made up their minds and you can't have a smoking gun that proves a negative.

Quote

Honestly if this had been a boxing match I would have been looking for the ref to step in and stop the fight.

It's kind of funny that Trump tried to play serious and Hillary was the attack dog. He was flailing after the first few exchanges. TKO, fer sher.

BTW, I forgot to say props to Chris Wallace. He was tough on both but didn't step on them more than they deserved. I also thought the mods in the second debate were pretty good.

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #16 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:17:08 AM »

So the standard for accepting the results of an election has already been set at bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump is able to challenge the results up to there before anyone starts freaking out. That seems fair enough.

I'll agree that if Trump refuses to accept the results of a Supreme Court decision then that will be going to far and will undermine our system. But he has up until that point while it seems like the Democrats, and many others besides, insist he concede on the first count even if it's close and with suspicious activity, something Democrats haven't been willing to do themselves.

Greg Davidson · « **Reply #17 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:17:43 AM »

It was Bush who took things to the Supreme Court.

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:21:35 AM »

Because Gore had already conceded the election but Bush just wanted to draw it out for the extra drama?

And even if Bush did it that's still where the standard is set.

Does anyone seriously think Trump is saying that he will refuse to concede after a Supreme Court decision?

D.W. · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:37:46 AM »

It depends on how close the results are IMO on whether the SC "is the standard now". That said, I think he would delight in the prospect of taking it that far just to do it. More so because it's a seat shy right now.

As to if he would accept a SC decision, I don't think he would. He seems physically incapable of admitting defeat / wrongdoing. At this point his follies are hard to write off as "outsider bad-boy" or even inexperience. He's mocking the whole system. Granted for some I'm sure they believe the system could do with a little mocking, but at what cost?

msquared · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:49:54 AM »

Ok so we have a 8 member SC, evenly split right? What happens if they split?

AI Wessex · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2016, 10:54:50 AM »

Quote

So the standard for accepting the results of an election has already been set at bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump is able to challenge the results up to there before anyone starts freaking out. That seems fair enough.

It's legitimate to follow the process as long as the challenge is credible. Gore had well-documented facts and a good argument. What will Trump's argument be? That Republicans, Democrats, the media and a global conspiracy stole the election? That's a tough argument to make to the SC.

Quote

Ok so we have a 8 member SC, evenly split right? What happens if they split?

I assume that a tie is a defeat, since it has been so far. If they tie on a request to review a case, it won't be reviewed. If they tie on a decision, the appropriate lower level decision stands.

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2016, 11:05:14 AM »

I'll agree that he's hamming it up right now especially on his concession but on the broader point he is right not to say he'll immediately accept whatever the results are without knowing the details, which nobody does or can at the moment.

Fenring · « **Reply #23 on:** October 20, 2016, 11:10:20 AM »

I can't say I hope for any particular outcome in this election, and if it were possible I'd prefer to see both candidates defeated in favor of...I dunno, one of those turkeys Obama pardoned. But in regards to Clinton winning, don't count those chickens until they turn into turkeys. You never know.

D.W. · « **Reply #24 on:** October 20, 2016, 11:12:22 AM »

I think an answer of, "It depends on how close the results are", would have played a lot better. I'll admit the FL decision being brought up here made me stop and think that the media is indeed making a lot more out of this than there is substance for.

However, I think Trump WANTS this reaction. It's not him being treated with a double standard (though he is) it's that he is poking the system to get a reaction... and it's working. "I'll leave you in suspense"? He's eating this up.

AI: I'm not sure on the split decision. Does such a challenge START at the SC? Typically it defaults to the last ruling. I don't know what happens if he somehow starts at the finish line of the judicial system... I would assume state by state challenges come first?

AI Wessex · « **Reply #25 on:** October 20, 2016, 11:17:28 AM »

My understanding is that you can't bring a challenge directly to the SC court without some extreme and urgent Constitutional basis with huge consequences if no decision is made. Gore and Bush ping-ponged their way all the way up the ladder one step at a time. I would expect that Trump would ask the SC to review both this election and the 2013 Emmy's because he got robbed in both votes.

Quote

But in regards to Clinton winning, don't count those chickens until they turn into turkeys. You never know.

Nice trope

.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:01:55 PM »

Trump art of the deal relies a great deal on the use of intimidation from the subtle to in your face.
One of the intimidation tactics he likes to use is to accuse his opponent of doing the very thing he is doing and play victim.

I think an argument can be made that the intention behind Trump’s challenge of the election results before the election has taken place is intimidation and a subtle intent of election rigging. IMO it borders on the criminal similar to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

D.W. · « **Reply #27 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:04:01 PM »

While arguments can be made that he is inviting people to intimidate voters in the name of "oversight" I don't find actual voter fraud for Trump any more credible than for Clinton.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:21:10 PM »

Trump is slicker then slick Willy.
Physiologists and sociologists will be studying him for some time.
It’s fascinating how he uses language, intimidation and misdirection.

Of all the moments in the debate that I think might have actually stung him was when the audience laughing when he declared that “No one respects woman more than I do”

TheDrake · « **Reply #29 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:29:51 PM »

I couldn't handle watching the third debate after the last two. I will say that my favorite moment from clips is Trump interrupting with "You're the puppet." like a petulant third grader.

Am not. You are.

This kind of thing would have been hilarious on VEEP, but not so much in real life.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 20, 2016, 12:56:24 PM »

Trump in a rare moment of self-awareness has said "When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different."

D.W. · « **Reply #31 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:00:53 PM »

In his defense, he's made it work. He mistakenly thinks he's successful and rich because of his attitude/mannerisms. Never dawned on him that his wealth (his family's wealth) lead to his success and permitted his attitude/mannerisms to go largely unpunished.

I guess both sides are fighting against entitlement...

D.W. · « **Reply #32 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:42:41 PM »

Reading the responses here and across the media, it seems I'm in the minority on my criticism of Chris Wallace. Maybe it really is an impossible job to make these two candidates behave and act respectful to each other. Even just to pretend for a short time...

Wayward Son · « **Reply #33 on:** October 20, 2016, 03:35:32 PM »

Trump has stepped back a bit on "keeping [us] in suspense" about accepting the election results, during a Ohio rally today.

Quote

[I would]...like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election—if I win.

Such class.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 21, 2016, 10:56:21 AM »

I think the intention behind Trumps repeated statements of a rigged elections is to insure those that follow him get out the vote.

The end justifying the means he appears to have given no thought as how his words might be dangerous. Worse that he does know how dangerous his words are but does not care.

“Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside” ― John F. Kennedy

I used the word follower’s deliberately

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #35 on:** October 21, 2016, 11:48:21 AM »

I agree that is Trump's intent as I've been known to say that Republicans need to outnumber Democrats at the polls by at least a million and a half voters to make up for the dead and other fraudulent votes. I'll admit that's a truthful hyperbole as I have no idea how many fraudulent votes are cast each election and it could be, which is the truthful part, only a few hundred as we are promised by those who believe massive voter fraud doesn't exist or it could be, which may be the hyperbolic part, a million or more if the people perpetrating are as good as the Clinton operative caught on tape seem to think they are. Trump may eventually say something exactly like that but he may also be couching it because he doesn't want his own direct get out the vote message to also inspire the opposition.

As for Trump talking about rigged elections there are numerous quotes about Hillary saying Bush was selected not elected, along with Kerry and many of the other high profile Democrats saying much worse things about the integrity of the election back then than anything Trump has said on the subject. It's hardly accurate to talk about Trump without mentioning the others including Hillary.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #36 on:** October 21, 2016, 02:32:02 PM »

Quote

I agree that is Trump's intent as I've been known to say that Republicans need to outnumber Democrats at the polls by at least a million and a half voters to make up for the dead and other fraudulent votes. I'll admit that's a truthful hyperbole as I have no idea how many fraudulent votes are cast each election and it could be...

Cherry, you're falling behind. Even FOX News expert today said that fraud is negligible, and that the vast majority of about 900,000 ballots rejected in 2012 (less than 1% of the total) were because the postmark was too late or there was a question about whether the signature matched.

There is no significant fraud, and Trump has no evidence that there is. It's not "truthful hyperbole" to make *censored* up whenever you feel like it.

Seriati · « **Reply #37 on:** October 21, 2016, 05:12:48 PM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on October 21, 2016, 02:32:02 PM

There is no significant fraud, and Trump has no evidence that there is. It's not "truthful hyperbole" to make *censored* up whenever you feel like it.

Just for clarity, when you say, "There is no significant fraud [this is an opinion of yours that can't be proven], and Trump has no evidence that there is [this is a fact]."

Election fraud is not a matter of "truthful hyperbole," at all. But the idea that election fraud could occur is not a made up "what ever word you used" either. The fact is, the capability to commit and get away with election fraud exists, and in many cases it is obvious on how to accomplish it, and there is no credible way to catch it in secret ballot elections.

Can you prove that your secret ballot, without your name on it, caused the votes to be recorded in the way you selected? Can you prove that the secret ballots in a district accurately reflect the votes of the investors in that district? How can you prove that, without actually breaking that secrecy? Even with the mechanical machines you couldn't be sure, but with the electronic there is absolutely no way to be sure.

Now when we know for a fact that the machines are hackable, what assurances can there be that they haven't been hacked? What assurances can there be that they weren't delivered pre-hacked by the manufacturers (as several people on this board speculated in prior election cycles - when they thought that would be pro-Republican).

Does it really make sense to put such an important right into such a high risk state, or even into a state where you can't be sure?

All we really have evidence of, is that catching election fraud doesn't happen too often. You don't have any more reasonable basis to believe that this is true because it doesn't occur than others do to believe it's because it's almost impossible to catch in our current system.

Wayward Son · « **Reply #38 on:** October 21, 2016, 05:35:37 PM »

Seriati, have you looked into what the various election boards in each state are doing to prevent the known ways of election fraud from occurring?

Sure, the machines are hackable, and districts with a single party could add votes, and other ways are possible to rig the election. But there are two things to remember:

1. Election boards aren't stupid. A vast majority of election boards have countermeasures in place to make sure the obvious ways of cheating are caught. If you have specific concerns, why don't you check with your local election board and find out if those ways are possible locally? Or if there is anything you can do to help prevent them? That way, you would at least help prevent such shenanigans in one precinct.

2. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of election boards in the U.S. I think just about every county has a board to administer the election and count the votes. So while local elections could be tipped by fraud, it would very difficult to rig every county in a state, or even the outcome of a national election. Because it would take operatives in just about every county, if not every precinct or voting place, to pull off most of the schemes I've heard (like filling in names of people who didn't vote to a voter's list). And the larger the conspiracy, the easier it is to find someone who'll tattle.

There is no 100% guarantee that the election isn't rigged. But there are enough people working in the election who don't want the election to be rigged that it is very difficult to do so and get away with it, especially with electing a President of the United States. Anyone who thinks that there is a good reason to be suspicious of the results needs to show exactly why he thinks so.

Unlike certain Presidential candidates, who shall remain nameless...

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #39 on:** October 22, 2016, 12:18:00 AM »

So is it just a myth then about the election fraud that helped JFK and LBJ win by stealing Texas?

If it's so easy to catch fraud then why wasn't it caught back then and the election results overturned?

We keep hearing insistence that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, but the Project Veritas video made the point that there wouldn't be. If what that Democrat operative was saying is true about he is a mastermind and knows how to beat the system, for instance by bringing in people by cars instead of buses, then how would we even know? If there is cooperation at the polling station from other Democrat operatives it makes it even easier. It's very possible they have their system down to an art so that any double checking after the fact only results in what looks like completely valid ballets. In other words if you don't catch them in the act you don't catch them at all. And all that would happen if you did catch them in the act is they would be told they are ineligible to vote. The person trying would act like it was a mistake, or maybe feign outrage and try a provisional ballet, and that's that. It's like trying to catch someone stealing water from a river or wind from a hurricane. After the fact nobody will ever even notice anything was ever amiss and if you did catch them in the act you wouldn't think it was any sort of crime anyway.

Just to be on the safe side it would be much better to assume there is massive election fraud and be so paranoid that we take every measure reasonably possible to detect and prevent it than to just assume it's not a problem so we don't need to be on the lookout for it that much.

I heard a good point made somewhere today about how Trump is catching so much flak from Democrats because he talked about not accepting the election results when the history is that Al Gore received complete Democrat support back then and still does to this day for actually NOT accepting the Presidential election results.

One thing I thought about that Trump probably hasn't is it's kind of a good thing that he made a point of this because now if he wins and Hillary doesn't accept the results she's going to look like a hypocrite and the even better thing is... well I was thinking it makes it less likely for the leftists to riot after she loses but maybe in fact it probably doesn't. At least it makes all of them look like hypocrites as well.

Greg Davidson · « **Reply #40 on:** October 22, 2016, 02:07:53 AM »

There was almost definitely fraud in the 1960 election of JFK. Also, JFK probably engaged in sexual activities pretty similar to those that Trump engaged in. But times have changed. 30 years after Kennedy, when Sen Bob Packwood similarly engaged in the same unwanted sexual attacks on women, he resigned from a senior place in the Senate. And that was 20 years ago.

There is not any significant voter fraud today. Furthermore, there is clear and compelling evidence that far more Americans have been stripped of their voting rights by impediments put into place by Republicans with the explicit intent of disenfranchising citizens. The voter ID laws aim at stopping tens of thousands of legitimate voters from having their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms; the risk of false votes cast is many thousand times less (and the false votes that have been counted have been equally Democratic and Republican; the deprivation of the right to vote is all done by Republicans on disproportionately Democratic constituencies).

AI Wessex · « **Reply #41 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:03:46 AM »

Quote

I heard a good point made somewhere today about how Trump is catching so much flak from Democrats because he talked about not accepting the election results when the history is that Al Gore received complete Democrat support back then and still does to this day for actually NOT accepting the Presidential election results.

I will admit one thing about the Gore-Bush election issue, which is that it is impossible to get people to stop trying to make it seem like what happened in 2000 is anything like what Trump is threatening. Gore called Bush to concede, but then the state of Florida told him the state's vote result could not be certified until a recount was completed. Gore then un-conceded, which was unusual, but appropriate for the circumstances. After going back and forth over which parts of the state should be included in the recount, it was Bush who took the case to the US Supreme Court after the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore.

Neither Gore nor Bush said anything about voter fraud. The challenges were all about irregularities in how the state counted votes.

Got that? Gore didn't start the recount process (Florida did), didn't take it to the Supreme Court (Bush did), didn't claim voter fraud (nobody did).

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #42 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:45:49 AM »

I did get one part that you left out, that Gore asked for the recount to happen only in heavily Democrat areas where any recount would end up giving Gore more votes than Bush. That's rigging the recount. Also, Trump didn't say under what circumstances he would or would not concede the election. My interpretation is that he is saying his concession will not be automatic. He may concede or not and it will all depend on the situation at the time. I doubt he is saying that he will refuse to concede no matter what.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #43 on:** October 22, 2016, 08:00:11 AM »

Remember Florida's history. Given all the irregularities committed by the state election board (remember Katherine Harris?), we'll never know who actually should have won. FWIW, if the recount of those 4 heavily Democratic areas had taken place it is likely that Bush still would have ended up with more votes than Gore. The bigger issue that affected Gore's total was incomplete re-examination of under-counted ballots where neither he nor Bush as credited with a vote and the state violating its own rules to count overseas ballots that were post-marked after the cutoff date. Those were mostly from overseas military personnel and heavily favored Bush.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #44 on:** October 22, 2016, 08:34:18 AM »

Quote

My interpretation is that he is saying his concession will not be automatic. He may concede or not and it will all depend on the situation at the time. I doubt he is saying that he will refuse to concede no matter what.

He's not being asked to pre-concede the election. Rather, he's already said that the vote is rigged in a conspiracy against him that goes beyond the Democratic Party to include "the media", corporate influences and even a "global conspiracy". He's even said his opponent should be disqualified because of crimes she's never been charged with committing. He's explicitly said he can't lose in a fair election.

TheDrake · « **Reply #45 on:** October 22, 2016, 08:49:49 AM »

Nothing O'Keefe edits has any credibility or context. I ignore him now. He treats his editing like sensationalist reality TV, not journalism. Even other conservative outlets like The Blaze criticize him for it.

The thing about any fraud in a Presidential election is the truly massive scale that would be necessary to have an impact on the outcome of a single state, let alone the electoral college tally. If it involved in-person voting, I just don't see where you would get all the bodies to take advantage of the flaws in registration lists. How many times could one person vote in a day? If you could get thousands of people, you think no one is going to brag, blog, or selfie about it? Nobody is going to find a way to infiltrate the system to expose it?

It is also true that there must be some voter fraud, or invalid ballots. You can't have millions of anything without having something screwed up. Florida shone a spotlight on one such flaw, with ambiguous paper punch ballots and the infamous hanging chad. Recounts are particularly prone to fraud and error as human judgement gets into the mix, and there's no such thing as a neutral party who volunteers to roll through thousands of ballots. Anybody who ever counted a till or did inventory can appreciate the difficulty even when there is no bias.

Then there's the bad call / referee bias concept. The NBA is a good case. There was evidence there that some referees manipulated games. But, the game has to be close for that to make a difference. Similarly with elections. Mondale couldn't have beat Reagan in 1984 with any amount of fraud. McGovern couldn't have beat Nixon in 1972 with any amount of fraud. And, if they did, it would be glaringly obvious.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 22, 2016, 09:21:05 AM »

Yesterday I had a conversation with an educated libertarian trump follower. Happy to report that I didn’t get thrown when he used trump truthful hyperbole to back his position.

When he made the point of massive election fraud I asked for the evidence to back that up. He moved the conversation to Florida which does not prove this election is being, will, be rigged if Trump does not win. He ended his argument with second hand accounts of people who new people who saw fraud.

The conversation wasn’t heated. I just challenged his facts and notice the tendency towards conspiracy and distrust of facts.

This was a well educated articulate man willing to follow a man who he acknowledged did not share or represent his values as it came to character.

Trump has successfully indoctrinated his followers to not trust the election process, the media, science, education, politicians… That his lies are innocent fabrications a tool that reveille the darker “truth” … that his character and what he says doesn’t matter but they can trust him based on what he says and who he is, he is the only one that can save the world.

Is Trump method intentional or ignorant? I don’t get it

When history asks how tyrants gain political power this is how you do it.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 22, 2016, 12:42:34 PM »

sorry the above was posted in the wrong thread

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #48 on:** October 22, 2016, 01:04:55 PM »

Well I wouldn't agree with him that he can't lose in a fair election. It would all depend on voter turnout, as it always does.

But it's quite obvious if he's talking about mainstream media manipulation by and collusion with Hillary he is absolutely right that it isn't "fair" in the sense of unbiased coverage. Wikileaks and the Russians blew the lid off that beyond any possible denying it.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 22, 2016, 06:58:44 PM »

Trump was perfectly happy with the free media coverage at the start of the campaign.
Calling something biased just because you don't like what is be said isn't the definition of bias.

Easier to call it biased then to address what is being said and maybe wonder if maybe he's off the mark and or if ones on bias is preventing you from seeing clearly.

Trump said if he wins the election will be judged as fair if he loses the election must have been rigged.
he doesn't believe the poles and i suspect math and so I guess such a statement is correct.
The man is either a evil genius or psychotic or both

This will not end well