Trump decides the election is "rigged"

[occupied]

If I'm not elected...I will be ...but if i'm not...It will be because of the riggers....they're horrible ... horrible... disgusting people these riggers...screw up everything we try to do... if you elect me...the bestest candidate ever....I promise to do something about the riggers....deport them or something....because they really are terrible people.....disgusting.....But hey I'll win in spite of the riggers...but if I don't it's them not me......never me.

Let's keep in mind that while Trump won the Republican nomination, Clinton was awarded the nomination by the Democratic leadership in a rigged nomination process. If you know anything about the history of the party, you know that super delegates were introduced into the primary process after McGovern won the nomination in 1972 despite the opposition of the party leaders and was promptly crushed. To prevent this from ever happening again, the party invented super delegates who are party leaders free to vote for anyone. If there had been no super delegates and more debates, Sanders would have won the nomination. It is clear that words like democracy and ethics have no place in the vocabularies of the leaders of the Democratic Party.

I am very well aware of what happened and I have not forgotten or forgiven anything but the only thing to do now is make sure Trump does not win. The lesser of two evils for sure but it's what we ended up with. I cannot imagine any issues driven progressive being so mad that they vote for Trump out of spite yet that seems to be the argument you are attempting.

That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that the way the leadership of the Democratic Party rigged the nomination process to cheat Sanders out of the nomination make it clear just how corrupt they are and makes it reasonable to assume they tried to use the influence of the WH to schedule the debates at times of expected low viewership to protect Clinton since she is such a poor debater.

As for Sanders supporters, I agree few will vote for Trump, but perhaps many will stay home on election day as a protest against the corrupt nomination process that gave Clinton the nomination. If you look at the polls, Clinton has a large lead among registered votes but a small lead among likely voters, so decisive wins for Trump at the debates could easily turn the numbers around among those registered votes who are likely to vote. That's why Trump is so angry about the debates being scheduled opposite NFL games.

It's no secret that party bosses attempt to control the outcome but still, the next morning of a debate the highlights are the most watched tube videos. Why do you care so much? Trump can ***** about the timing all he wants but the truth remains that the schedule was decided after lengthy negotiations between both campaigns. It's not something that was imposed upon him without his input. If it was maybe he needs to have a few words with his campaign managers.

 

[occupied]

We are the only country in the world where the government has no control of the media, care to explain the mechanism whereby our government may use the media to unfairly influence our election?

I just did. The Democratic leadership which has the support of the WH can suggest a tit for tat arrangement by which a network can get more access - or less if they don't comply - if the debates are scheduled at times of expected low viewership to save Clinton from again being humiliated by her poor debating skills.

Pretty thin. If the candidates are interesting, people will tune in to a debate no matter what time it is on. Besides, We have youtube, it's not like every person in country has only one opportunity to watch the debates.

Not at all. Relatively few voters take advantage of all the information about the candidates available on the Internet and most of those who choose to tune into an NFL game instead of the debates will not then search for the debates. Elections are won or lost at the margins, by a few percentage points, so if scheduling the debates opposite NFL games reduces the viewership by only 10%, it will skew the vote in favor of Clinton since she is such a poor debater.

Youtube and TIVO negate any such manipulation real or imagined. The primaries have always been manipulated and rigged to keep outsiders at bay. In years past the republican party was monolithic enough that the party bosses could just pick who's turn it was so they had no defense against a lousy cult of personality interloper. The republicans dropped the ball on their end and will now pay dearly for it.

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

 

[Toro]

Of course it would be rigged.

It's the only way Birfer Trump could ever lose.

He's a winner!

 

[Preacher]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

Hacking a computer which is what a
voting machine practically is,is very simple.

 

[occupied]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

Hacking a computer which is what a
voting machine practically is,is very simple.

If Trump loses by more than half a percentage point the likelihood of cheating becomes almost infinitesimal. You could probably cheat a machine here and there perhaps a precinct or two. After that the evidence of cheating would become too large to be hidden.

 

[Preacher]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

Hacking a computer which is what a
voting machine practically is,is very simple.

If Trump loses by more than half a percentage point the likelihood of cheating becomes almost infinitesimal. You could probably cheat a machine here and there perhaps a precinct or two. After that the evidence of cheating would become too large to be hidden.

Why would it be hard to hide? No one had proof they were cheating Bernie but they were and no when you control the machines you can control the outcome. You commies should know what your idol said


The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do. Joseph Stalin

 

[occupied]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

Hacking a computer which is what a
voting machine practically is,is very simple.

If Trump loses by more than half a percentage point the likelihood of cheating becomes almost infinitesimal. You could probably cheat a machine here and there perhaps a precinct or two. After that the evidence of cheating would become too large to be hidden.

Why would it be hard to hide? No one had proof they were cheating Bernie but they were and no when you control the machines you can control the outcome. You commies should know what your idol said


The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do. Joseph Stalin

Exit polls are accurate enough that if the result is outside the 1-1.5% margin of error people start talking about recounts and investigations. Elections can only be stolen if the candidates are so close that individual precincts matter. It is really not possible to rig a cheat any larger than precinct level so to do more than that would require a conspiracy so large it would surely be found out.

 

[PredFan]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

Yeah, tell Bernie Sanders' supporters that an election can't be rigged.

The problem, Mr. Pred, is that Mr. Trump should have made his case for this BEFORE he started slumping in the polls. He prides himself on being such an insider, why didn't he say from the get go that the elections were rigged? He boasts about giving all these politicians money and he didn't know the elections were rigged?

So somehow that makes it ok? Because Trump didn't know? How silly is that?

 

[Norman]

Now that it's clear Donald Trump is losing, Mr. Trump has taken to attacking the election process itself. Although the election is nearly 3 months away "The Donald" has decided the entire electoral process, which has elected just as many Republicans as Democrats is "rigged against him" Donald Trump has no evidence of this whatsoever, nor has he made an effort to produce any. The general election in America is the most closely watched election in the world. The amount of verified voter fraud is less than 1/10th of 1%, Still, legions of his followers have blindly chosen to believe this nonsense rather than to find out for themselves. Maybe Republicans really are THAT dumb.


Donald Trump is wrong. Rigging an election is almost impossible.

He is right, the DNC did rig the election in favor of Hillary. Please keep up! In a classically regressed attempt the dems are now blaming Putin for rigging the election for exposing the fraud - a claim which has no evidence behind it what so ever.

In general, good fraud won't be verified, the libs certainly are in criminal fashion encouraging illegals to vote and trying to obstruct democracy via any means possible. A bit troubling...

 

[toomuchtime_]

I just did. The Democratic leadership which has the support of the WH can suggest a tit for tat arrangement by which a network can get more access - or less if they don't comply - if the debates are scheduled at times of expected low viewership to save Clinton from again being humiliated by her poor debating skills.

Pretty thin. If the candidates are interesting, people will tune in to a debate no matter what time it is on. Besides, We have youtube, it's not like every person in country has only one opportunity to watch the debates.

Not at all. Relatively few voters take advantage of all the information about the candidates available on the Internet and most of those who choose to tune into an NFL game instead of the debates will not then search for the debates. Elections are won or lost at the margins, by a few percentage points, so if scheduling the debates opposite NFL games reduces the viewership by only 10%, it will skew the vote in favor of Clinton since she is such a poor debater.

Youtube and TIVO negate any such manipulation real or imagined. The primaries have always been manipulated and rigged to keep outsiders at bay. In years past the republican party was monolithic enough that the party bosses could just pick who's turn it was so they had no defense against a lousy cult of personality interloper. The republicans dropped the ball on their end and will now pay dearly for it.

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

 

[occupied]

Pretty thin. If the candidates are interesting, people will tune in to a debate no matter what time it is on. Besides, We have youtube, it's not like every person in country has only one opportunity to watch the debates.

Not at all. Relatively few voters take advantage of all the information about the candidates available on the Internet and most of those who choose to tune into an NFL game instead of the debates will not then search for the debates. Elections are won or lost at the margins, by a few percentage points, so if scheduling the debates opposite NFL games reduces the viewership by only 10%, it will skew the vote in favor of Clinton since she is such a poor debater.

Youtube and TIVO negate any such manipulation real or imagined. The primaries have always been manipulated and rigged to keep outsiders at bay. In years past the republican party was monolithic enough that the party bosses could just pick who's turn it was so they had no defense against a lousy cult of personality interloper. The republicans dropped the ball on their end and will now pay dearly for it.

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not at all. Relatively few voters take advantage of all the information about the candidates available on the Internet and most of those who choose to tune into an NFL game instead of the debates will not then search for the debates. Elections are won or lost at the margins, by a few percentage points, so if scheduling the debates opposite NFL games reduces the viewership by only 10%, it will skew the vote in favor of Clinton since she is such a poor debater.

Youtube and TIVO negate any such manipulation real or imagined. The primaries have always been manipulated and rigged to keep outsiders at bay. In years past the republican party was monolithic enough that the party bosses could just pick who's turn it was so they had no defense against a lousy cult of personality interloper. The republicans dropped the ball on their end and will now pay dearly for it.

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

By which you are saying you are more interested in partisan loyalty than the issues.

 

[whitehall]

Trump never said "the election is rigged". Some editorialist named Ari Berman said Trump said the election is rigged. The ironic thing is that we already saw the democrats rig the primaries so that Hillary could beat Sanders. Voter I.D. has been in place in several states for more than a decade and it's intent to curb the fraudulent use of multiple votes in different precincts is well established. What's the point? The point is that the once venerable Washington Post has become such a a freaking shill for the DNC that it doesn't even try for the semblance of honesty anymore.

 

[Norman]

And who decided to rig the election?

The DNC.

 

[occupied]

Youtube and TIVO negate any such manipulation real or imagined. The primaries have always been manipulated and rigged to keep outsiders at bay. In years past the republican party was monolithic enough that the party bosses could just pick who's turn it was so they had no defense against a lousy cult of personality interloper. The republicans dropped the ball on their end and will now pay dearly for it.

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

By which you are saying you are more interested in partisan loyalty than the issues.

No, I am saying that his half-hearted attempts to lure progressives to vote for him offends me deeply after how he talks about progressive issues. He actually thinks we are that stupid after being demonized by him for months. I do not like Hillary but I utterly despise Donald Trump and his fascist with-me-or-against-me attitude.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You seem to be saying you agree the Democrats are trying to rig the general election but you see nothing wrong with that because you believe the Republicans may have done it in the past.

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

By which you are saying you are more interested in partisan loyalty than the issues.

No, I am saying that his half-hearted attempts to lure progressives to vote for him offends me deeply after how he talks about progressive issues. He actually thinks we are that stupid after being demonized by him for months. I do not like Hillary but I utterly despise Donald Trump and his fascist with-me-or-against-me attitude.

The things I listed have been his positions from the start of the campaign so for you to suggest he is only recently using them to "lure" you to his side shows you really have no interest in any of the issues and are simply a political partisan.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And who decided to rig the election?

The DNC.

The leadership of the Democratic Party seem to have a low opinion of democracy and ethical behavior.

 

[Nosmo King]

And who decided to rig the election?

The DNC.

The leadership of the Democratic Party seem to have a low opinion of democracy and ethical behavior.

The DNC doesn't write the rules of elections. They can and do, however, write the rules about how their nominee is selected.

Only those who wish the election could be rigged in order to provide an excuse, at best, or a boogeyman at worst to hang Trump's defeat on.

 

[occupied]

I'm saying that if they are trying to rig it this way then they wasted their time. They rigged their primary but even that was a waste since Sanders had internet coverage Hillary could have only dreamed of and he still lost. Better luck next time for a truly progressive candidate. The big difference between Sanders and Trump is that most progressives care far more about issues than politicians. If we can keep Hillary's feet to the fire on progressive issues then it matters not that sanders lost. Sanders was not as much a cult of personality as Trump is.

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

By which you are saying you are more interested in partisan loyalty than the issues.

No, I am saying that his half-hearted attempts to lure progressives to vote for him offends me deeply after how he talks about progressive issues. He actually thinks we are that stupid after being demonized by him for months. I do not like Hillary but I utterly despise Donald Trump and his fascist with-me-or-against-me attitude.

The things I listed have been his positions from the start of the campaign so for you to suggest he is only recently using them to "lure" you to his side shows you really have no interest in any of the issues and are simply a political partisan.

Quit talking crazy, we are all partisans here. The only people who are not are the wishy-washy swing voters both sides have to court to win. I have a great deal of interest in issues, as do all progressives, but in this case Donald Trump has purposely made himself the most serious political issue in the election.

 

[Norman]

If it is just a waste of time, then why did Sanders and Clinton fight so hard about the number of debates during the primaries and why is Sanders still bitter about having so few? Do you think Sanders, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and others are all stupid?

You will never see a progressive as the Democratic nominee because the whole nomination process is engineered to prevent it, and you will no more be able to "hold her feet to the fire" than you were able hold Bill's feet to the fire in 1996. The only way you will ever see a progressive get the nomination is by sitting out an election, go on strike as it were, to show the leadership they can't win without you. If progressives are more focused on issues than partisan loyalty as you claim, you should have no problem sitting out this election since Trump is more progressive on some issues than Clinton is.

For example, Trump wants to rescue the children of poor families from having to go to failed, violent schools by giving them federal school vouchers, but Clinton is firmly against doing anything for but complain. Trump's plan to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico and deport those who are already here, will free up millions of jobs for poor Americans and allow wages to rise. Clinton, of course, will only talk about poor people without doing anything about it. Similarly, Democrats were firmly against NAFTA when Bill Clinton colluded with Republicans to get it passed and by renegotiating this treaty and others, Trump will keep American jobs in America and perhaps be able to bring some back. Clinton will stick with Bill's historic mistake.

In terms of equal pay for women, that has been the rule in the Trump organization for decades and it presently has more women than men in executive positions despite the fact there are more men than woman who work there. Ivanka, who is Trump's most trusted adviser has made it her mission to provide paid leave to both men and women who are new parents and to provide amenities for women who have to bring their children to work. Since Trump has been willing to pay for all these things out of his own pocket, it is clear he will fight to make them realities in other American workplaces.

So you see you wouldn't be sacrificing any of you progressive principles by sitting out this election in order to show the leadership of the Democratic party they can't get along without you, and in some respects electing Trump is the more progressive choice.

**** Donald Trump and anyone who tries to say he is a kind and generous man when he talks hatefully about everything I care about.

By which you are saying you are more interested in partisan loyalty than the issues.

No, I am saying that his half-hearted attempts to lure progressives to vote for him offends me deeply after how he talks about progressive issues. He actually thinks we are that stupid after being demonized by him for months. I do not like Hillary but I utterly despise Donald Trump and his fascist with-me-or-against-me attitude.

The things I listed have been his positions from the start of the campaign so for you to suggest he is only recently using them to "lure" you to his side shows you really have no interest in any of the issues and are simply a political partisan.

Quit talking crazy, we are all partisans here. The only people who are not are the wishy-washy swing voters both sides have to court to win. I have a great deal of interest in issues, as do all progressives, but in this case Donald Trump has purposely made himself the most serious political issue in the election.

Yes, to a progressive anything that disagrees with him is an issue. The tolerance...

Primarily it must be agreed that the progressive be sent your money via taxation. The primary plank of the scam of an ideology.