• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the election "rigged"?

Was the election "rigged"?


  • Total voters
    68
That's the lefts wound to ponder. He got $3 billion in outrageous fabricated negative news designed to destroy him.

How much did he get in free media coverage which helped his campaign - both in the primaries and in the general?
 
How much did he get in free media coverage which helped his campaign - both in the primaries and in the general?

I do think the media coverage did help his campaign though not in the way you're thinking. None of it was designed to "help" him, to be sure, the intent was to tank it, but just the overblown media favoritism to Hillary tanked their own cred instead and gave Trump a plausible target to a group of folks already fed up with media bias.
 
Dems don't "constantly claim" that there's no fraud at all; they claim only that there's almost no voter fraud.

Which makes sense. Voter fraud is a felony and has almost no payoff. Other groups can, and probably have, tampered with various elections, though.

OK so what fraud have they been against. None that I know of, but please enlighten me.
 
To my knowledge, the Democrats are against crime in general.

You dodged the question. What election fraud have the Dems gone go after, say in the last 30 yrs.

You say the Dems are against crime in general. Not when it comes to illegals, nor voting fraud if it's against the Pubs. Or the IRS sticking it to the Pubs. The list goes on and on.
 
Seeing some funny stuff along these lines on both sides. Some lefties are actually now musing that it's possible after blasting Trump for suggesting it could happen while some righties are defending the election results and scoffing at even the possibility of fraud. So, where are you on this?

In some ways it was definitely rigged.

-The Comey / Giuliani connect and the over reaching harsh language, the first letter, and the second letter.

-The fake news sites, some of which were put up by Russia. (By itself not such a big deal, but in connection with the next one it becomes relevant.)

-The Wikileaks material, its connection to Russia, and Russia's connections to Trump's former campaign manager.

-This disinformation being put out about Clinton.

-The voter suppression tactics being used all over the Country.

-The extreme and ridiculous gerrymandering and how it affected Congressional elections.

Some or all of these things are definitely things that "rigged" the election. There is just no doubt about it.
But if you are looking for direct and concrete "rigging" such as hacking voter machines, then we'll have to wait and find out. No one can be sure until after the recount.

There are differences between the accusations Trump was making vs. the reality of what is.
Trump's accusations were baseless and about nothing. Just wild flailing like a young child throwing a tantrum. Trump was just trying to set up a following for his plans to continue the campaign right into a new major TV Network and milk them for all they are worth. It was merely about profit.

Clinton has no accusations beyond fingering Comey as responsible. Something that is true, but only part true. Most of the rigging done on behalf of the Right is obvious and apparent. No one really needs to point it out. But most of it is stuff that is not defined by any law that could alter the result.
The only thing that could alter the result is a recount.
And we're probably going to have that recount. My prediction is that Clinton would win Wisc and Mich. But Trump would keep Penn and still win.

Clinton will not get into the fray with the recount unless she thinks the proof will be overwhelming.
One thing that the Right can never deny is that the Left always puts America first. Gore as well as the Clintons demonstrated this very clearly in 2000 and again today.
The contrast between Clinton and Trump in this area is drastically different.
 
In some ways it was definitely rigged.

-The Comey / Giuliani connect and the over reaching harsh language, the first letter, and the second letter.

-The fake news sites, some of which were put up by Russia. (By itself not such a big deal, but in connection with the next one it becomes relevant.)

-The Wikileaks material, its connection to Russia, and Russia's connections to Trump's former campaign manager.

-This disinformation being put out about Clinton.

-The voter suppression tactics being used all over the Country.

-The extreme and ridiculous gerrymandering and how it affected Congressional elections.

Some or all of these things are definitely things that "rigged" the election. There is just no doubt about it.
But if you are looking for direct and concrete "rigging" such as hacking voter machines, then we'll have to wait and find out. No one can be sure until after the recount.

There are differences between the accusations Trump was making vs. the reality of what is.
Trump's accusations were baseless and about nothing. Just wild flailing like a young child throwing a tantrum. Trump was just trying to set up a following for his plans to continue the campaign right into a new major TV Network and milk them for all they are worth. It was merely about profit.

Clinton has no accusations beyond fingering Comey as responsible. Something that is true, but only part true. Most of the rigging done on behalf of the Right is obvious and apparent. No one really needs to point it out. But most of it is stuff that is not defined by any law that could alter the result.
The only thing that could alter the result is a recount.
And we're probably going to have that recount. My prediction is that Clinton would win Wisc and Mich. But Trump would keep Penn and still win.

Clinton will not get into the fray with the recount unless she thinks the proof will be overwhelming.
One thing that the Right can never deny is that the Left always puts America first. Gore as well as the Clintons demonstrated this very clearly in 2000 and again today.
The contrast between Clinton and Trump in this area is drastically different.

Ok, seriously?
 
One thing that the Right can never deny is that the Left always puts America first. Gore as well as the Clintons demonstrated this very clearly in 2000 and again today.
The contrast between Clinton and Trump in this area is drastically different.

The Clintons (especially Hillary) do not put America first. They're corrupt politicians. They put themselves first.

Trump will probably be no different.
 
Tampered with? Hugely. Rigged in the more rigid sense of the word, i.e. ballot box stuffing? No, I'm not seeing evidence of that. A centrally focused effort to rig an election is extraordinarily difficult. That's why it's up to local municipalities to pass laws that knowingly target traditionally Democratic voters, such as shortening early voting, making college students only be able to vote in their home states and creating voter id laws.

My initial response was the same, until there was some credible discussion of bizarre results between electronic voting machines and ballots in key counties of three swing states... Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Apparently the electronic voting machines in those three states were consistently showing 7% fewer votes for Hillary than the same demographic using ballots. So now, I dunno.
 
The Clintons (especially Hillary) do not put America first. They're corrupt politicians. They put themselves first.

Trump will probably be no different

Honestly, you're just parroting the talking points of others. I've watched this character assassination on the Clintons for decades. Is Bill a lousy husband and a horndog? Yep. Is Hillary an ambitious woman who wanted to become president? Yep. Are they responsible for dozens of murders, sex trafficking of children, giving away national secrets, uncharged felonious behavior? Nope. They just pissed off the RNC 30 years ago, and have been their preferred target of destruction ever since. This year, they had a lot of help from the Russian government in collusion with a treasonous slug, Assuange.
 
Honestly, you're just parroting the talking points of others. I've watched this character assassination on the Clintons for decades. Is Bill a lousy husband and a horndog? Yep. Is Hillary an ambitious woman who wanted to become president? Yep. Are they responsible for dozens of murders, sex trafficking of children, giving away national secrets, uncharged felonious behavior? Nope. They just pissed off the RNC 30 years ago, and have been their preferred target of destruction ever since. This year, they had a lot of help from the Russian government in collusion with a treasonous slug, Assuange.

You don't need to kill a bunch of people and **** children to put yourself before your country.
 
Honestly, you're just parroting the talking points of others. I've watched this character assassination on the Clintons for decades. Is Bill a lousy husband and a horndog? Yep. Is Hillary an ambitious woman who wanted to become president? Yep. Are they responsible for dozens of murders, sex trafficking of children, giving away national secrets, uncharged felonious behavior? Nope. They just pissed off the RNC 30 years ago, and have been their preferred target of destruction ever since. This year, they had a lot of help from the Russian government in collusion with a treasonous slug, Assuange.

I already know that so much BS has been made up against them. This is why I was linking people to Snopes articles on a constant basis, because the garbage that they were making up on Infowars simply wasn't true.

Even though they aren't trafficking children, or killing DNC employees covertly, that doesn't mean they somehow aren't corrupt politicians that are beholden to their corporate interests, because they most defintley are (especially Hillary Clinton).
 
I already know that so much BS has been made up against them. This is why I was linking people to Snopes articles on a constant basis, because the garbage that they were making up on Infowars simply wasn't true.

Even though they aren't trafficking children, or killing DNC employees covertly, that doesn't mean they somehow aren't corrupt politicians that are beholden to their corporate interests, because they most defintley are (especially Hillary Clinton).

Then so is every current and former politician on the planet. The Clintons have, over the years, dedicated themselves to helping others through the foundation which is now being slandered for stuff that the Trump foundation has been already proven to do. Hillary spent her early years during and after college working with women and families in crisis. She made healthcare for the poor a priority as first lady. She was by all accounts an outstanding senator for New York, pushing through reticent funding to help emergency workers immediately after 9/11, and continued working for health benefits for these workers during her entire term.

The much maligned Clinton Foundation, which has yearly audits publicly available, has supplied HIV and other medications throughout Africa for 100's of millions of people. They don't build golf courses for the rich. The mere fact that they, like every other politician/ex-politician out there, takes money for giving speeches has been bantied about as if it's illegal, for Christ sake. Guiliani gave speeches to the same Wall Street brokers as Hillary, and yes, he was paid for them! Hypocrisy, anyone?
 
You dodged the question. What election fraud have the Dems gone go after, say in the last 30 yrs.

I'm sure I could find something if I researched it long enough. The problem is that so few people ever engage in it that whatever I found would not be significant enough to care about.

You say the Dems are against crime in general. Not when it comes to illegals, nor voting fraud if it's against the Pubs. Or the IRS sticking it to the Pubs. The list goes on and on.

Right. So I assume you have a quote from a prominent Democratic politician who advocates breaking immigration law, electoral law, and/or tax law? If you do, let's hear it.
 
no but the election gives unfair attention to swing states
 
It seems some of those swing states had some swinging computer help toward the Donald. Wasn't he asking Russian hackers to help him out at one time?
 
Tampered with? Hugely. Rigged in the more rigid sense of the word, i.e. ballot box stuffing? No, I'm not seeing evidence of that. A centrally focused effort to rig an election is extraordinarily difficult. That's why it's up to local municipalities to pass laws that knowingly target traditionally Democratic voters, such as shortening early voting, making college students only be able to vote in their home states and creating voter id laws.

I think manipulating is a more accurate word than fraud. Although I happen to believe that if just 1 fraudulent voter is found we have a problem.

But I'll bite How is shortening early voting, making college students eligible to vote in only one place, creating voter ID laws discrimination if everybody is required to do the same? Unless of course you believe that minority voters are not as smart as old white guys.
 
I do think the media coverage did help his campaign though not in the way you're thinking. None of it was designed to "help" him, to be sure, the intent was to tank it, but just the overblown media favoritism to Hillary tanked their own cred instead and gave Trump a plausible target to a group of folks already fed up with media bias.

What would be the price for Trump to have put all those rallies on TV like they were covered?
 
no but the election gives unfair attention to swing states

Some of those swing states were solidly in the Democrat camp last election. So if I were a Democrat I would be worrying why I lost them.

How does the election give unfair attention to swing states?
 
Seeing some funny stuff along these lines on both sides. Some lefties are actually now musing that it's possible after blasting Trump for suggesting it could happen while some righties are defending the election results and scoffing at even the possibility of fraud. So, where are you on this?

I don't think so. Hillary's win in the popular vote was within the margin of error of what was predicted by the polls. It was the electoral college results that surprised everyone of us. Pennsylvania's results were also within the margin of error, it just very few of us expected Trump to win. Maybe we should have taken the MOE into consideration before we jumped to conclusions. Michigan was the same way, the poll or the average of them had Clinton winning by 2, Trump won by just 0.3%. But again the results were within the margin of error. The final poll taken in Michigan on the 6th actually showed Trump with a 2 point advantage. Michigan also shouldn't have surprised us, but it did.

Only in Wisconsin was Trump's win outside the margin of error. Clinton was suppose to win by 6, Trump won by 1. But the polls were a week old in Wisconsin. A lot can change in politics and with elections in a week. So a recount of Wisconsin is probably warranted. Although I don't expect any changes or a huge vote find for Clinton.

No, looking at the polls and what happened should have been expected. The problem is too many of us don't take the margin of error into consideration. No rigging.
 
Last edited:
I think manipulating is a more accurate word than fraud. Although I happen to believe that if just 1 fraudulent voter is found we have a problem.

But I'll bite How is shortening early voting, making college students eligible to vote in only one place, creating voter ID laws discrimination if everybody is required to do the same? Unless of course you believe that minority voters are not as smart as old white guys.

Well, it's just funny how Republican state congresses did studies to find who their voting regulations would impact, and passed those regulations to affect them just the same. And what do you know? Those regulations only targeted demographics known to vote Democrat. What a coinkidink.
 
Well, it's just funny how Republican state congresses did studies to find who their voting regulations would impact, and passed those regulations to affect them just the same. And what do you know? Those regulations only targeted demographics known to vote Democrat. What a coinkidink.

Well, I suppose you could be right. It is possible that those congresses over estimated Dem voters ability to obtain ID.
 
How much did he get in free media coverage which helped his campaign - both in the primaries and in the general?

Doesn't matter. The fact is Trump defeated them all spending less than a third the amount of the rest. That's not a bad thing. Perhaps Trump can bring some of his ability to get the job done for far less than the other guy to the office.
 
Well, it's just funny how Republican state congresses did studies to find who their voting regulations would impact, and passed those regulations to affect them just the same. And what do you know? Those regulations only targeted demographics known to vote Democrat. What a coinkidink.

You have some backup for that claim?
 
Back
Top Bottom