Greedy Goblin

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

"The election is rigged" of Trump

Donald Trump now claims that the election will be rigged without any evidence. People take it as a rationalization why he'll lose. I think they are wrong, if he'd think he'll lose in a fair fight, he could just pull out as suggested and let Mike Pence try his luck. No, I think he is just telling what he believes.

What he believes is factually wrong. The election is handled locally, large scale fraud would need a conspiration of tens of thousands of people, many of them Republicans reporting to a Republican Governor.

But we should know better already that Trump often uses hyperboles and inaccurate terms. What he means is that the political system as whole is "rigged". I think he entered pretty naively with no clue what's waiting for him.
  • He expected plans and programs to be presented and the people will choose. Instead he found ad hominem attacks on "irrelevant personal issues".
  • He expected the media to reporting about the happenings. Instead he found that they act as extension of the Clinton campaign.
  • He expected his party to follow him to Heaven or Hell. Instead he found that they jump ship as soon as they think it'll sink.
  • He expected the FBI to properly investigate Clinton. Instead he found that Clinton got away with mishandling hundreds of secrets. He found that there isn't even an investigation on the hundred millions of dollars she got for "speeches" (obvious bribes).
I can continue this list forever. Of course no one with experience with politics are a bit surprised on anything he found. We expected exactly what happened: dirt-flinging, partisan media, opportunistic allies and immunity for politicians from laws. He is outraged and think it's a conspiracy against him, while politics was always that bad. Bill Clinton was impeached for Monica, not policies; the media gladly echoed the lies of W Bush about the Iraqi nukes and Obama didn't lock him up even when it was clear that he started a war based on lies and widely used torture. OK, party leaders jumping ship weeks before the election is unprecedented.

This is why he isn't laughed off the stage, but 41% of the people believe the same. Because people are outraged by these things and want the whole establishment gone. This is why 37% of the people would still vote for him. This is why 15% would vote for a candidate with no chance to win. And this is a problem that won't go away on Nov 8.

On a personal note: I can empathize with him. When out of the blue Falcon attacked me, I was similarly shocked and outraged. I expected the devs be impartial stewards of the game and not partisan participants. My reaction was the same as his: burn the whole system down. So when I tell what I'd do in his place, there is a chance he plans the same thing: boycott the election, tell his people to don't accept the Clinton government, protest, sue, riot. Not for revenge, but in the hope that the establishment will be forced to change.


Anonymous said...

> He expected plans and programs to be presented and the people will choose. Instead he found ad hominem attacks on "irrelevant personal issues".

His plans and programs are nonsense. He enthusiastically turned the primary into a personality contest, because he knew that his personality would outshine his boring rivals.

Are you saying that he expected a "reset" between the primary and the general election? Or do you think that he went into the Republican primary expecting a contest of high ideas?

Chaos Engineer said...

I think you're misreading the candidates' platforms.

The people who "want the whole establishment gone" didn't vote for Trump in the primary. Trump *is* "the establishment". (Not the political establishment, but the business establishment that funds the politicians and pulls the strings from behind the scenes.) Trump's admitted as much in several speeches. His economic proposals are pretty much standard Republican boilerplate.

The anti-establishment voters all went for Ted Cruz (in the Republican primary) or Bernie Sanders (in the Democratic primary). They both had moderately-strong second place finishes, despite a complete lack of support from party leadership. This may have some implications in future elections.

The people who voted for Trump in the primary are racist nitwits who support Trump because he talks exactly the way they talk when they're out drinking with their buddies. They're aware that he's not going to improve the quality of their lives, but he hates the same people that they hate, and that's what really matters to them.

The people who are going to vote for Trump in the general election are those same racist nitwits, plus some sensible Republicans who think that Trump is a trashy nouveau-riche buffoon, but are terrified of giving Clinton the ability to nominate Supreme Court Justices.

Gevlon said...

@Anon: I've never said "high" ideas. But building a wall, locking out the muslims and cooperation instead of strong-arming Putin are ideas and strongly differed from the mainstream.

@Chaos Engineer: his economic proposals are indeed standard Rep. His social ones are very much not. Are you saying that "racist nitwits" and opportunistic idiots are 37% of the electorate?

Unknown said... <-- in which a large scale conspiracy similar to the one Trump (and you) are describing is exposed, because when people say "this many people conspiring is impossible, they would get caught" they are actually right, but it won't stop people trying. Looking forward to the establishment (republicans answering to a republican governor very much included) trying to commit actual full blown election fraud and getting caught (if you want a preview, you might also check out the followup video to the one I linked, in which "technically voter fraud" is committed on a large scale).

Regarding Trump entering the election naively: given the way he's run his entire campaign, it seems pretty evident that he knew exactly what would happen. The more public support his populism drums up, the more it will have to be countered by shady (or outright illegal) practices like these which will only lead to more support for the anti-establishment candidate. It's looking more and more like this election will end badly, as the establishment doesn't seem overeager to go quietly into the night.

maxim said...

I tried to find the source for "election is rigged trump". There is no direct link to the source in first three pages of google - they are all filled with media complaining. Which tells me that media is overreacting, to put it charitably. The overreaction is always designed to drown out the source.

Within the articles, i was able to find a single tweet of Trump to the effect of media obscuring the truth. Which seems like a valid observation to me, given the fact that i had to slog through three pages of search and actually read the articles to even find that tweet (and that tweet is the only thing i found).

There was some talk about Trump making this statement at earlier points, but no supporting links are given, so i can't tell whether this observation is fact or further emotional overreaction by a biased and manipulative entity that is mass media.

According to the same media, Hillary has a lead that is both significant and expanding. The very fact that the media is reacting so strongly just to drown out a single tweet of Trump tells me otherwise.

Azuriel said...

@Gevlon "Are you saying that "racist nitwits" and opportunistic idiots are 37% of the electorate?"

That would be, ahem, a conservative estimate. But, yes, easily a third of voters are ridiculous morons. 18% of Americans polled stated that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Between 10-40% (depending on wording) believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old. As George Carlin said, "Think about how dumb the average person is, and realize that half of everyone is dumber than that."

I don't think Republicans have a monopoly on electorate idiocy, but I do believe that Trump is a particularly special case, given there is nothing really "conservative" about him. Pretty much anyone voting for him are nihilists, those who feel the same way he does (e.g. xenophobic nitwits), or single-issue voters willing to sacrifice literally everything else for a Supreme Court justice or tax cuts.

Gevlon said...


@Azuriel: this is true for the whole electorate (fanatics, nihilists and single-issue voters). So you aren't really saying anything.

maxim said...

Thanks for the link.
The salient point, however, that it takes quite a lot of effort to find that link. Which is usually indicative of significant bias of those criticising the material without linking it.

maxim said...

I'd like to point out that in the link provided Trump is talking about the rigged system, not the rigged election. The media is trying to spin it as if he is already talking about rigged elections (thus trying to obscure his message about the system being rigged).

Slawomir Chmielewski said...

maybe the people who vote Trump aren't racists, but instead are tired of being called racists by PC nitwits like yourself?

Tithian said...

The establishment can never be removed, ever. The rewards for being part of the establishment are so large, that ideology goes out the window 100% of the time when people come into power. Even if Sanders became the next president, he would be Clinton 2.0 by the end of his term. And the reason is that for someone to advance and make it into politics nowdays, he pretty much has to be an opportunistic and backstabbing piece of shit, so being corrupted takes practically zero effort.

I live in Greece, which somewhat recently voted for a left government, specifically because the people wanted the establishment gone. The party that got voted (Syriza) was bordering on extreme left/communist ideals with some of its members, which the people tolerated because they wanted to completely demolish the previous status quo. The slogan among the voters was literally "πουτάνα όλα", translated roughly into "wreck everything".

What happened? The government 'stayed the course' for 6 months and then when the pressure began from the EU, the left memebers were forced to quit, while the remaining memebers became even more 'establishment' than the older establishment. That's because they saw that essentially they had absolute power, with no way to ever get punished for it, so they might as well make the most of it during their term. You know what they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely; and now 1.5 years in we have cases where even the press, media outlets and even judges and DAs are outright threatened and pressured to 'comply' with government policies.

And for anyone that thinks I'm just a grumpy and disillusioned that has 'given up on the fight', then all I can say is that I envy you for being able to live in a fantasy world of your own making.

Anonymous said...

- He expected plans and programs to be presented and the people will choose. Instead he found ad hominem attacks on "irrelevant personal issues".

We are talking about Donald Trump, right? He announced his campaign by calling mexicans murderers, rapists and some, he assumes, are good people. It was an ad hominem attack on an entire people, and it was the first speech. He literally could not got one speech without attacking someone else.

- He expected the media to reporting about the happenings. Instead he found that they act as extension of the Clinton campaign.

Donald Trump has dominated media coverage from the second he got into the campaign, and mostly on his own terms. Saying the media is an extension of the Clinton campaign neglects just how much coverage the man has gotten. Has it all been good coverage? No, but Donald Trump has never necessarily thrived on good coverage. A couple leaked tapes and a legion of women coming forward is probably actually helping with his voter base, not hurting.

- He expected his party to follow him to Heaven or Hell. Instead he found that they jump ship as soon as they think it'll sink.

Again, that's probably actually helping him. The entire theme of the campaign is that he's a man trying to stick it to the political elites and Washington. Seeing actual Washington elites turn away from him is a positive for him.

-He expected the FBI to properly investigate Clinton. Instead he found that Clinton got away with mishandling hundreds of secrets. He found that there isn't even an investigation on the hundred millions of dollars she got for "speeches" (obvious bribes).

The FBI had absolutely nothing to work with. Sending and receiving classified information is only crime if you're not authorized, which she was. As you saw from all the coverage, from that point it quickly spiraled into the quagmire of how she handled the information. To my knowledge, what the FBI would be pursuing is a first of its kind case based not on disseminating classified information but on handling it, against a major political figure during an election year. Long story short, its a recipe for complete disaster for the FBI. They made the best call they could because there really wasn't a different call for them to make in this particular case.

As for the Speeches, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Trump can't really call Clinton out for paid public speaking, because he has been a paid public speaker for decades now. In terms of how much money he's made public speaking he's just barely beating out Reagan, who also gave paid speeches before he was president. Paid speeches have been part of politics for a long time, not unique to Clinton in any way. It's sort of a corrupt tradition in politics that everyone participates in.

-Because people are outraged by these things and want the whole establishment gone.

I would argue that the desire to be rid of the other party largely trumps the desire to be rid of the establishment as a whole. That 41% of trump supporters doesn't want the "establishment" gone, they just want to see democrats replaced with a republican. The people who are truly anti-establishment are that 15% of people who are voting third party. because they want to see neither of the established parties win.

Anonymous said...

- A note on Election Rigging claims

I would have to argue that all his talk about election rigging is nothing more then the rationalizations of a man who can not cope with the idea he might be beaten. Trump seems to be under the impression that he's done everything perfectly this election, so he can only lose if the deck stacked against him.

The Politically Correct world that trump and his supporters so despise isn't just some grand conspiracy: The population of this country has undergone huge shifts over the last couple decades. Trump is a relic of past, an old white man who grew up in and became accustomed to an America where mostly like-minded whites were the largest voting block and held the majority of economic and social power. Trump's gambit this election is that that america still exists, and things have not truly shifted to the point where a foul-mouthed old man who wants to talk about what he thinks of "the women" and "the mexicans" shouldn't hold the single most powerful office of our government.

In that regard, Trump has dropped the ball more spectacularly then any other political candidate in my lifetime. In this year, facing what is probably the weakest candidate the democratic party has ever put up, the fact that he is losing is nobody's fault but his own and his utter failure to realize how to play the game.

@Slawomir Chmielewski They're being called Racists because they're supporting a Racist. It's called guilt by association. It goes with standing up in support of a candidate. Don't feel too bad, Clinton Voters have to deal racists calling us PC.

Gevlon said...

@Anon: "deport Mexicans" is a political program. I'm not saying I'm behind it, but it IS a program and should be discussed on its own merits instead of attacking the messenger.

The media is an extension of the Clinton campaign AND BECAUSE OF THAT just how much coverage the man has gotten IN THE PRE-ELECTION. I fixed it for you. He got unprecedented 2B+ worth free media space, because the Clinton campaign wanted him to be the Rep candidate, as he seemed to be easier to beat than Marco Rubio or Clarly Fiorina.

You're right about the possibility that "defecting" Reps are in collusion.

She was authorized to handle classified information. She sent it to every Tom, Dick and Harriett in her campaign who were not authorized.

His public speeches are PUBLIC. Clinton's are very much not and that's the point.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Trump is naive. He knew exactly what he would face. He saw the presidential election for what it is, a popularity contest. He jumped in whole heartedly with his publicity centric gameplan. The US election is a vote-to-keep reality show. You cannot win voters if you aren't getting coverage so the more publicity you can get the better. Alienating voters is no issue if you you can recruit one more supporters than you push away.

For Trump to win he needs people looking at him and thinking, "He cares about us more than Hillary"
For Trump to lose he has to either cross a red line too far (which he has been able to get around so far by calling it the truth or liberal/establishment bias), or have his supporters look at his policies and decide it costs them too much. Almost any publicity either wins him votes or distracts people from leaving him. He has perfected the art of the dead cat strategy.

99smite said...

While I can see some good points and arguments on both sides, i have to contradict to some of Goblin's points. As much as I wish for Clinton to get indicted for the circumnavigating the FOI act by having a private mail server, if there was evidence that classified/top secret information got sent to people lacking the proper clearance, I am convinced that the FBI and the prosecutors would have gone into action. What they have criticised is the fact that the private servera lacked the level of IT security federal serves allegedly provide, but as they said, this was not a criminal offense.

People suddenly act as if "THE MEDIA" was paid or led by Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of media coverages that were very critical about Clinton and there are a lot of "independent" news channels which reach a fairly large audience who are clearly pro Trump and anti Clinton.

The news coverage of Trump was not guided by the Clinton campaign, but by the often outrageous claims Trump made. He basically attacked anyone because he calculated taht this would give him media coverage and helped him spin the narrative, Trump! Finally one he dares to speak out against the corrupt elites...

This is just a spin! Nothing of it is true. Trump is part of the establishment and has profited from the system like only the insanely rich do.

Trump dug his own grave when he began bringing up sexual assaults of Bill Clinton, not Hillary. He is accusing her of siding with her husband while at the same time Melania does exactly the same. Ofc, one might say, she's not running for presidency, sure, but she is in Trumps camp, so still the same "shit"...

Media in Germany are fearmongering, what if Trump wins? Will this mean WW III? I tend to believe Gevlons arguments a while ago, where he said that Trump will not take actions to begin other wars and that the world will become "more oeaceful" by Trump not doing anything in the field of foreign affairs.
From this POV, a Trump win might be a good thing.
On the other had Trump is no leader, he is not capable of reuniting people. He is polarising. I believe that Clinton will be better suited to reunite people, as she is not openly targeting specific groups in American society. The problem why she will fail as well is that the American people are so much polarised and that is partly due to the fascists from tea party and partly to Trump.

Again, both candidates are unworthy and unfit, sadly, as the US and the world deserve better candidates.
I don't know if Sanders should have declared himself an independant candidate after that scandal of primary forging... Unfortunately he would not have a realistic chance as he would still have needed ALL the democrat support...

Trumps rant of rigging have already led to a reaction by Barack Obama: Stop whining! Priceless...

David Boshko said...

37% of the Republican primary turnout being racist nitwits is very very different than 37% of the general election turnout being racist nitwits. Don't confuse them.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous said...
"The Politically Correct world that trump and his supporters so despise isn't just some grand conspiracy...Trump is a relic of past... Trump's gambit this election is that that america still exists"

That demographic was clearly lost in the mid 2000s. Trump is being carried by something different.
The current post-liberal trend is based on an accidental conspiracy. Western democracy became about winning enough of the centre-vote to get a majority resulting the liberal-elite becoming the Kingmaker. Demagogues can legitimately claim that Establishment predominantly favours the Centralists and unlike traditional politicians, they can target the whole political spectrum for support. Anyone who feels as though they might have lost out because of political correctness, equality, immigration, globalisation or liberalism is a potential recruit and not just the angry white men.

Anonymous said...

> He got unprecedented 2B+ worth free media space, because the Clinton campaign wanted him to be the Rep candidate, as he seemed to be easier to beat than Marco Rubio or Clarly Fiorina.

Hypothesis #1: Hillary Clinton is a media-politic-business mastermind who is able to dominate editorial boards, newsrooms, and bloggers' basements across the nation. She is able to force everyone (including her political opponents such as Fox News) to preferentially report on a candidate of her choosing. Therefore everyone reports on Donald Trump. And nobody (including her political opponents such as Fox News) bothered to leak the secret memos and emails in which Hillary Clinton gave them their marching order.

Hypothesis #2: Donald Trump says controversial things. By reporting on those things, news outlets gain additional viewers. If they report on the boring things said by Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, they get fewer viewers. Therefore everyone reports on Donald Trump.

Phelps said...

1) It doesn't require a conspiracy any more than setting the market price a good requires all the sellers to conspire on the price. There's plenty of stochastic communication ("I don't have to tell you what to do, but this precinct is very, very important") that goes on, and the Dems have had 50+ years to spread the methods by word of mouth.

2) Criminal conspiracies are the easiest to hide. No one is going to run out advertising that they participated in voter fraud anymore than someone runs out to advertise that they are part of the drug running "conspiracy".

3) The same arguments you use to argue against there being voter fraud argues against there being drug trafficking. It requires a criminal conspiracy of thousands (if not millions), many of whom are policemen reporting to policemen. Yet, we know that drug running happens, because we see the results and the arrests -- the same way that we know voter fraud happens (and on a massive scale) by seeing the results and the arrests.

Anonymous said...

Clinton has no option except to personally attack. Trump brings up issues of security, foreign policy, economic policy, college fees and so on. Clinton's policy on all is "everything the same, business as usual", and no on will vote for the same if they are unhappy now. Hence, she relies only on sex allegation and racism and so on.

It is possible to fail since the political correctness weapon has become so diluted through overuse and people stop caring. All it takes is so many people to say "yes I'm a racist, so what?". Then political correctness loses all its power.

Anonymous said...

Americans, in general, do not respond well to talking, but they respond quickly to violence. Violence is a common thing here: against their oppressors (Revolution), violence against those who do not toe the line (Civil War) and violence against those they fear and war with (dehumanize other nations people so its easier to kill them).

This election is a nightmare and it all revolves around the 37%.

If Trump wins, a significant number of individuals who are frustrated and afraid now within minority communities will feel outnumbered and outgunned by the 37% who feel America is broken because someone who does not look like them is running it. The 37% is already armed, so a significant number of minorities will arm themselves for protection against Jim Crow laws being put back on the books. That fear is VERY valid, as the Republicans will control all three branches of the Government and the Supreme Court. Trump has made is ok to be a racist, if you follow it up with "I'm a Cristian/Conservative". If he loses, the next Republican nominee will run on the SAME EXACT PLATFORM, a continuation cause it worked so far, but will do it with establishment savvy and we will be in a more harrowing situation as it will be completely mainstream to be racist again.

All it takes is so many people to say "yes I'm a racist, so what?". Then political correctness loses all its power. - And the murder rate will climb significantly in America when this happens.

America is a gun culture country and with the Castle Law in place, I can already see it NOW, but it will worsen when someone goes down that path with someone who is legally a CCW holder. I know people in the police department that already see the writing on the wall, some loudmouth says "yes I'm a racist, so what?" and gets killed ... If the shooter is a minority, Castle Law will most likely support the shooter. Why? America is not known for being nice to its minorities, look at Alt-Right, the Trump Campaign and the 37%, they think their tribe deserves to rule America by "Making America Great Again".

We use to punch each other, get tired and get a beer afterwards, now we shoot each other. All it only takes "I felt my life was threatened" in a Red State, by a person waving the Stars and Bars, to make a case that will further divide the country.

- Trump played the media to the tune of 100s of millions in free air time, he does not have a leg to stand on.
- Trump IS the establishment because that is who he will support
- Trump may not be a Christian, and is is definitely not a Conservative
- Both parties are worthless

Anonymous said...

Evidence of widespread voter fraud by dems.

There are currently active voter fraud investigations in five seperate US States, btw.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 20 October, 2016 02:37

There are videos of Republicans ensuring Dem voters will be redlined out, ensure there is a 'voting tax' and blatantly intimidating people so they are turned away by so called 'investigative journalists". When you provide links to a REAL news agency, then maybe I will by into voter fraud.

Phelps said...

Poll taxes and blatant intimidation were used by DEMOCRATS in the Jim Crow south. Learn your history -- up until he died a few years ago, democrats were sending klansmen like Robert Byrd to congress, not republicans.

Anonymous said...

Please do not do that, this is a civil conversation and it is hard enough for people outside of America, let alone those inside America to get educated on the subject.

Please stop trying to hide the well known fact that the Democrats you are talking about are DIXIECRATS. Dixiecrats (or Conservative Southern Democrats) left the party when liberal Democrats and LBJ supported and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with the support of liberal Republicans. The passing of the Civil Rights Act started a polarity shift within the political parties. During the 1970's and Nixon's Southern Strategy, the few remaining liberal Republicans were driven out of their party and were replaced by DIXIECRATS and the change was solidified.

And ... we are not talking about THEN, we are talking about NOW, the 2016 Presidential Race. Trump even called upon his most tenacious supporters to 'watch the polls' to make sure there is no voter fraud even though the things and information he is citing is only PARTIALLY true. MOST of the 'dead people voting' are early voters who passed away before the countries official count AND MOST 'people able to vote twice' are people who moved to a new state during voter registration and the books were not cleared. I say MOST because there is room for foul play if you really want to go there. Given just those two FACTS, we are back below the 0.00000013 % number that gets put out there all the time (2002 and 2005 Federal Voting). 26 cases in 197 Million votes, explain 'rampant'. Once you get educated on these things, things that LOOK wrong are easily explained.

Anonymous said...

Since you brought him up and people from this country need to hear this also, let's talk about Byrd:
- 2001 renounced the KKK saying it was the worse decision he made in his life
- 2002 secured money for an initiative to strengthen the teaching of "traditional American history", in addition to Social Studies, recognizing the need for real American History to be learned in school without revisionist information injected. Conservative Republicans voted it out in 2011
- 2003-2004 NAACP rated him 100% in line with racial equality positions that they championed.
- 2005 Voted to add 10 million dollars to a Martin Luther King Jr National Memorial when some states wanted to remove the holiday
- 2005 received a 65.5% LIBERAL rating from the National Journal
- 2005 received a 65.5% rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his support of environmentally friendly legislation
- 2006 received a 67% rating from the American Civil Liberties Union for supporting rights-related legislation
- 2008, Byrd endorsed Barack Obama for President

Was he a separatist and KKK member, yes. Did he get out there, learn who his constituents really are, see the world as it is, stop being afraid of things he did not understand when he was younger and make inroads for change? You bet your ass he did.

So the hateful, conservative Democrat championed minorities, voted for manmade climate change legislation, championed a minority leader national memorial and endorsed a black President. Yes, he did vote against later term abortions, many people would. Yes, he did vote against gays in the military, as people who are afraid of things they know nothing about did (MANY politicians changed their stance when they found out the children/grandchildren/relatives were gay and being persecuted and treated like minorities).

BTW, I still dislike BOTH parties, but I am a stickler for providing REAL information, not REVISIONIST information. The more we play this disingenuous "we won, so we get to make the rules" game, the less our children are going to really know how problems started, what has been done to fix them and what has worked and what has not worked. Laws in America are made for the benefit of a SIGNIFICANT number of American citizens, not just the 37%.

Yaggle said...

I only wish both candidates would stop attacking each other for personal issues, or claims of unfairness, and get back to explaining how and why they will do a good job as president. Especially Trump, never been in a politician, should start explaining details of what he will do. The election seems more about whether you are for, or against what Hillary will do. It seems more like a high-school popularity contest.

Phelps said...

Trump did nothing but explain details of his policies and plans at his Gettysburg speech.

You didn't hear about it because he didn't call Hillary a nasty woman.