• 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"? (1 Viewer)

Was the election "rigged"?


  • Total voters
    68
You have some backup for that claim?

The emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time.

“Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?” a staffer for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012.

“Is there no category for ‘Hispanic’ voter?” a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct.

And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for “a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.”

Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID — restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities.

Critics dubbed it the “monster” law — a sprawling measure that stitched together various voting restrictions being tested in other states. As civil rights groups have sued to block the North Carolina law and others like it around the country, several thousand pages of documents have been produced under court order, revealing the details of how Republicans crafted these measures.

The two sides to the voter ID law debate Embed Share Play Video3:15
This year more states than ever will require potential voters to show photo ID in order to vote in the election. Here's why this is so controversial. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
A review of these documents shows that North Carolina GOP leaders launched a meticulous and coordinated effort to deter black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The law, created and passed entirely by white legislators, evoked the state’s ugly history of blocking African Americans from voting — practices that had taken a civil rights movement and extensive federal intervention to stop.

Last month, a three-judge federal appeals panel struck down the North Carolina law, calling it “the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.” Drawing from the emails and other evidence, the 83-page ruling charged that Republican lawmakers had targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

You and xfactor think specifically seeking to restrict certain demographics that don't share your political orientation from voting is funny. Humor is all in timing and delivery, however, so I can only assume that to be why the courts aren't getting the joke.
 
I think Hillary believed the polls so her minions did not engage in a sufficient amount of vote rigging to win. Had the polls showed her losing, she would have engaged in far more cases of vote fraud
 
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.

Actually it matters a great deal in any discussion that the media was against him. He would not have gotten where he did if not for the untold millions of free coverage he got when his speeches and rallies were put live on various media outlets.

You cannot just look at the negative coverage but also have to look at the benefits of any coverage at all.
 
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.

Can you link to that? I've seen it mentioned somewhere but don't anything about it myself.
 
Actually it matters a great deal in any discussion that the media was against him. He would not have gotten where he did if not for the untold millions of free coverage he got when his speeches and rallies were put live on various media outlets.

You cannot just look at the negative coverage but also have to look at the benefits of any coverage at all.

Then perhaps the Democrats should get better at utilizing the press. You seem to be claiming that doing the job for far less money is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?
 
Then perhaps the Democrats should get better at utilizing the press. You seem to be claiming that doing the job for far less money is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?

Anything that pushed a possible fascist to the American people was a bad thing.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

You and xfactor think specifically seeking to restrict certain demographics that don't share your political orientation from voting is funny. Humor is all in timing and delivery, however, so I can only assume that to be why the courts aren't getting the joke.

Liberals rarely ever get or appreciate a joke about liberals. That's been my experience. Regardless, it is funny to see your claims in light of what I know from living in a voter ID required state. Far from trying to dissuade voters, Texas has made it so damn easy. We have early voting two weeks before the election. Those polling places were stationed all over the city and you can vote at any of those regardless of where your actual precinct is. Many forms of ID are accepted, and failing that, we'll give you one at no cost. Clinton won here, btw, by a large margin so it seems many, many Dems were able to figure it out, at least enough to punch that straight ticket option. No matter what Texas does though, to alleviate concerns of voter suppression, you'll claim it exists and that it's intentional.
 
Anything that pushed a possible fascist to the American people was a bad thing.

Seriously? Is that the best you got?

The Democrats, including Hillary, lost. The Republicans, including Trump, the Governors races, Congress, state legislatures, and almost certainly the SCOTUS, lost. Big time.

And Trump did it with a third the money.
 
Was the election "rigged"?

Liberals rarely ever get or appreciate a joke about liberals. That's been my experience. Regardless, it is funny to see your claims in light of what I know from living in a voter ID required state. Far from trying to dissuade voters, Texas has made it so damn easy. We have early voting two weeks before the election. Those polling places were stationed all over the city and you can vote at any of those regardless of where your actual precinct is. Many forms of ID are accepted, and failing that, we'll give you one at no cost. Clinton won here, btw, by a large margin so it seems many, many Dems were able to figure it out, at least enough to punch that straight ticket option. No matter what Texas does though, to alleviate concerns of voter suppression, you'll claim it exists and that it's intentional.

Yeah, subverting democracy is great, hahahahaha.
 
Re: Was the election "rigged"?

I voted "possibly" since, of course, it's possible. I haven't seen anything so far to convince me that the election might actually have been rigged.
 
Re: Was the election "rigged"?

Yeah, subverting democracy is great, hahahahaha.

How did anything I described scream out "subverting democracy" to you?
 
Liberals rarely ever get or appreciate a joke about liberals. That's been my experience. Regardless, it is funny to see your claims in light of what I know from living in a voter ID required state. Far from trying to dissuade voters, Texas has made it so damn easy. We have early voting two weeks before the election. Those polling places were stationed all over the city and you can vote at any of those regardless of where your actual precinct is. Many forms of ID are accepted, and failing that, we'll give you one at no cost. Clinton won here, btw, by a large margin so it seems many, many Dems were able to figure it out, at least enough to punch that straight ticket option. No matter what Texas does though, to alleviate concerns of voter suppression, you'll claim it exists and that it's intentional.

Read the article I cut and pasted. You just ignored it.
 
Actually it matters a great deal in any discussion that the media was against him. He would not have gotten where he did if not for the untold millions of free coverage he got when his speeches and rallies were put live on various media outlets.

You cannot just look at the negative coverage but also have to look at the benefits of any coverage at all.

Whenever the media focused on Hillary her numbers tanked. That's why the MSM did their level best to keep the spotlight off her.
 
Whenever the media focused on Hillary her numbers tanked. That's why the MSM did their level best to keep the spotlight off her.

the more people learned about Hillary, the less they liked what they saw. The media tried to make Trump even less savory than the lying Bitch but they failed
 
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?

Pennsylvania is a traditional swing state with a blue leaning while michigan and wisconsin have blue leanings. While it is true that the political landscape of states does change, the amount of people in swing states will always be less than those living in safe states.
 
Maybe it was God's cruel joke.
 
I doubt it very much.

But there is no way for me to answer that question as there is no way I could know for certain.

But no, I do not believe it was rigged.

But nothing surprises me in American politics anymore....so....
 
Pennsylvania is a traditional swing state with a blue leaning while michigan and wisconsin have blue leanings. While it is true that the political landscape of states does change, the amount of people in swing states will always be less than those living in safe states.

I get that. Three left leaning blue states now went red. Resulting in a blue loss. What's not to understand?

Why would the amount of people in swing states always be less than in safe states? There seems to be no logical reason.

But it still doesn't answer the question. How does the election give unfair attention to swing states?
 
Re: Was the election "rigged"?

How did anything I described scream out "subverting democracy" to you?

Uhh, from the post you were responding to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

You and xfactor think specifically seeking to restrict certain demographics that don't share your political orientation from voting is funny. Humor is all in timing and delivery, however, so I can only assume that to be why the courts aren't getting the joke.

(Restricting people from voting)
 
Re: Was the election "rigged"?

Uhh, from the post you were responding to:



(Restricting people from voting)

I can only speak to what I know and that's how it is in Texas. The "restrictions" here are not insurmountable, far from it, it's pretty much on par with requiring people be able to read a ballot or find their way to a polling place or to have to register to vote to begin with.
 
How does the election give unfair attention to swing states?

2/3 of the election campaign took place in 4 states. And New Hampshire with just 4 electoral votes got more attention than California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, New York, Illinois, Washington, and Tennessee even though all of those states have more electors than NH but they're safe states. And New York despite being the home state of both candidates and being the fourth biggest population saw zero campaign events.
 
2/3 of the election campaign took place in 4 states. And New Hampshire with just 4 electoral votes got more attention than California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, New York, Illinois, Washington, and Tennessee even though all of those states have more electors than NH but they're safe states. And New York despite being the home state of both candidates and being the fourth biggest population saw zero campaign events.

In other words, those states where there was little chance to turn a vote got less attention than those with a shot of making a difference. That's just good marketing.
 
Rigged, no. Sabotaged, likely.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom