Is it normal for trump to worry about fixed election?
Is it normal to think it's a valid concern?
Ask Your Question today
Is it normal to think it's a valid concern?
Partisan interest is one thing, actively coordinating with the Clinton campaign is quite another. We're talking about journalists giving Clinton debate questions beforehand, asking for permission to publish articles and giving forewarning on upcoming interviews. In this election the media have serviced more as a tool of propaganda then a means of keeping the electorate informed.
Calling his supports fuckwits is completely uncalled for and it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously. It seems like your argument about Trump centers around you not liking his personality. That's a simple sort of thinking and certainly not about the issues that actually matter. I hope you're young because you've got more growing to do.
Giving weight to to any of Trump's baseless accusations makes it difficult for me to take any of Trump supporters seriously. I am not a big fan of Hillary and there are plenty of republicans who are disgusted with the republican nominee so to say the media has treated him unfairly is absurd. They have given too much legitimacy to his ridiculous campaign in an attempt to be fair.
Can you elaborate on Trump's baseless accusations?
For the resistance Trump has in the Republican party, I think the reason goes far beyond simple disgust. I think if you reframe the political spectrum as Establishment and Non-Establishment, you'll find that most R's and D's aren't all that different.
Well there's the matter of Obama's birth certificate for starters...Trump made such an issue of it, even claimed to send a team of investigators to Hawaii who supposedly uncovered stuff that "They can't believe what they're finding" and Trump would release the info at an appropriate time. He never sent any investigators, he pulled it out his ass.
His latest claims of the election being rigged by a conspiracy of the Clintons, John McCain, Paul Ryan, the media, international business, and a Mexican named Carlos Slim (I've never been so high that a story like that ever sounded believable.)
His BS story that Ted Cruz's father was linked to the Kennedy assassination. He also claimed to have read some classified material that proves Hillary and Obama are criminals but of course you'll have to take his word for it since it's classified. Idiots eat this shit up and he's more than willing to take advantage of their willingness to be duped.
The thing that differentiates Establishment vs Non-Establishment Republicans is that Establishment Republicans have some form of civility and decency that is lacking among the so-called Non-Establishment or Alt Right. The Alt Right has a scorched Earth, win at all cost attitude that is destructive. "If we can't have this village or country, then we'll make it uninhabitable". They want to poison the well.
You have a very interesting perspective on the Establishment vs Non-Establishment dynamic, and I'm having trouble following your reasoning on that. It's not accurate to say the Non-establishment are shitposters from 4chan, bent on destruction. Non-establishment is your mom and dad, the guys who pick up your trash once a week and the people you go to work or school with.
You're non-establishment because you aren't inside the politician-lobbyist-executive circle, you pay your taxes and you certainly can't get away with crimes. There are elected and unelected officials who aren't beholden to citizens like you or me.
The Ted Cruz and Birth Certificate are definitely out there, and maybe I'm just callous this deep into an election year, but I just can't put them on the same level as the corruption we're finding on a daily basis out of Wikileaks. We never had so much proof how much control the Establishment had over the media, and, as you brought up, voter fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
This video is as close to a confession as we're going to get from a DNC operative. When the stakes are this high and the rewards are so great, cheating is inevitable. It's just naive to think otherwise.
Bottom line is the Republican party used to be the party of personal accountability. Now they have a turd of a candidate who can't keep his mouth shut and creates his own problems but blames everyone else. What he calls a conspiracy is in fact a consensus among anyone with half a brain that he is unqualified by way of thought, temperament and action to be POTUS. Spin it however you wish. Hard to claim he's non-establishment outsider if he's been a big money donor and now his closest advisers include the likes of Rudy Giulliani and Chris Christie. If the rebublicans wanted to win the election they should have gone with John Kasich who would be ahead of Clinton in the polls. But no, they went full on bat-shit crazy.
I think it is a fixed election, but maybe not in the way that some people think. I don't think that someone is going to "miscount" the votes in favor of Hillary necessarily, but I do think that the media has absolutely made this election somewhat unfair.
First of all, the media from the beginning has bashed Trump at every opportunity they get. If you just google Trump's name, it's negative article after negative article. They try to take any little story they can about him and make it huge. For example, calling him a racist based on pretty much no evidence... calling him a sexist based on very little evidence, trying to always say that he's losing or that his campaign is down to the last straw even in the primaries when he was doing well. They blew the recording thing out of proportion. It was bad, but many people in politics have done much worse.
In contrast, Hillary's email scandal was minimized. It got some media attention because it had to, but a lot of the stuff out there was defending Hillary saying that it wasn't really that big of a deal and stuff. Fox news was the exception, but even then, once the FBI director came out with his statement, the media pretty much dropped it.
What really blew my mind is how bias the debates were. For the first two debates, it was pretty obvious to me that the moderators were very anti Trump. In the second debate, one of them almost started arguing with Trump, which was totally out of line. The types of questions they asked him and the manner in which they asked him were created to make him out to be an idiot and unfit for the job. The third debate seemed more fair in the way they asked the questions, but it was probably too late by then to change people's minds much.
If you just look at the numbers, there has probably been 100's of millions spent against Trump. Both by the Clinton campaign and by the media. Trump has probably spent 20-50 million or something against Hillary with very little media support. Considering that, Hillary is probably winning, which makes sense. But what does it say about this election and these candidates when after spending 100's of millions against a single person and countless media organizations making as many bad stories about Trump as they can, Hillary only has the lead by a few percent? That says a lot I think. You have to hand it to Trump that he has run a pretty remarkable campaign to be able to have a fighting chance against almost the entire establishment.
You talk about Trump's character and the candidate in Hilary has far more character issues that are very relevant to how she would be able to dispense the duties of the office. She clearly deleted emails that showed either incompetence or outright criminal actions as secretary of state and the current administration moth balled the entire investigation by stomping down hard on the FBI because this was the candidate the Democrats were putting out and she couldn't be investigated during the election.
The media has clearly been partisan to the democratic candidate, in the same way they were with Obama when he was running in 2008, his background wasn't even investigated at all. If you CHOOSE to not see that and CHOOSE blame Trump for not "winning them over" than you are grossly deluded. The media made their choice on how they were going to present each candidate and if you think it has been fair and balanced, you are totally wrong. George Washington wouldn't have been able to run a fair campaign against the monster that the American liberal media has become. Even the most corrupt liberal candidate would not have been presented in an unbiased way.
Trump has run a campaign against everyone. The democrats, the media, even his own party refuses to support him, while still nominating him. How absurd is that? Even the most rational, reasonable person would have a very difficult time running a campaign in that environment. I would be paranoid also.
What you can't deny is the fact that 100's of millions have been spent against Trump, and he has still come out with a fighting chance. He beat 17 people in the primaries. Hillary beat 2. Hillary has the backing of the establishment, the majority of the media, and the president of the United States. Why isn't she winning by 20,30, 50 or more points? It's because Trump has run a remarkable campaign.
You might think that the things that he has said and that his strategies are childish, immature, and "emotionally retarded", but it's obviously effective. This is a country of the people, and Trump has rallied millions of people behind his campaign. There is something about his message that people like. No one thought that he would get this far at first. But he did. That is impressive. He spent a fraction of the money that Hillary spent.
You might not like Trump as a person, but I want you to think about something. That extra 400 million dollars that Hillary spent on her campaign... that is money that could have been put to use to make this country better or to help people. And it has all been used to make Trump look like an idiot. If Trump is so dumb, and he is such a bad candidate, then why does she need to spend that much money? Why can't she spend half of that or less and just let voters make the obvious choice? There are stupid people in this country... but not that many stupid people. If the choice is so clear, then why does she need to spend that much? Especially with almost all the media on her side?
The answer is that Trump actually has some good points and has a chance with the popular vote. Trump has actually created jobs. He has actually grown a business. Trump has been bold enough to do what people thought was impossible. You might not like him as a person, but you have to respect that.
Clinton has been for sale for years. I'm sure her quid pro quo will still be in play if she gets in the white house!!
Trump is a phony scam artist. His optimal strategy would have been to focus on Hillary representing the "status quo" and establishment of Washington, which is a point he has made, but in order to make a more convincing argument he needed to expand on that with facts which he failed to do. Bet instead all he did was personal attacks on her, which just highlights his lack of moral character. At this point I actually think he may even have been paid to throw the election, the man will do anything for a buck.
You must know Trump personally, to be so well versed on his personality and his overall character. You must also be some sort behavioral therapist as well. Are you? If not, than the term ad hominem would really apply here, not where you used it above to try and sound intelligent.
So, essentially you are okay with the media doing your thinking for you regarding the candidates that are presented, their respective credentials and whichever the media favors is yours also.
Brilliant.
Trump hasn't "gradually alienated" anyone. Everyone was against him from the start. And what sort of candidate would run on a platform generalizing the entire system as corrupt and biased and expect people to listen to them? Trump has tried talking about the issues, but it constantly revolves back to his taxes or the ridiculous notion of "sexism". "Sexism" isn't relevant to the election. I like women's tits, am I sexist?
The simple fact that you mention in your comment that Trump's "pussy grabbing" is far more "concerning" than Clinton clearly mishandling classified information that may have directly contributed to the deaths of American citizens in a foreign country, is all the evidence a rational person would need to conclude that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
The comment of "pussy grabbing" and the bungled handling of classified information is in no way comparable. It doesn't even belong in the same sentence.
I sincerely hope you are not an American and definitely hope you are not registered to vote because there are far too many people voting against Trump already because the media did a story about how 20 years ago he called a fat person "fat" or some other stupid, totally irrelevant topic.
“You must know Trump personally, to be so well versed on his personality and his overall character. You must also be some sort behavioral therapist as well. Are you?”
Various experts have analysed his personality. In contravention of the Goldwater rule, of course, but that doesn’t detract from their analysis.
“If not, than the term ad hominem would really apply here, not where you used it above to try and sound intelligent.”
I used it correctly above. An ad hominem refers to attacking someone’s character (with the implication being that a person of deficient character must make deficient arguments) rather than tackling their argument on its own merits. It’s a fallacy. I was right to label the above an ad hominem. The accusation that my pointing out Trump’s narcissism constitutes an ad hominem is incorrect because I am not attempting to refute an argument by making derogatory comments about his character; I am simply making derogatory comments about his character.
“So, essentially you are okay with the media doing your thinking for you regarding the candidates that are presented, their respective credentials and whichever the media favors is yours also.”
This is a straw man fallacy. My realism about the media’s role in political contests such as this cannot reasonably be taken as advocating an uncritical stance.
“Trump hasn't "gradually alienated" anyone. Everyone was against him from the start.”
So how do you explain the drastic fall in support for Trump in the polls? And the gradual nature of the increase in the number of Republicans denouncing him, which accelerated after the pussy-grabbing statements?
“And what sort of candidate would run on a platform generalizing the entire system as corrupt and biased and expect people to listen to them?”
Anyone of a genuinely anti-establishment political persuasion. Or (now) Trump, but only because he’s a sore loser.
“Trump has tried talking about the issues”
That’s simply not true. Did you watch his rallies? Did you watch the debates?
“but it constantly revolves back to his taxes or the ridiculous notion of "sexism". "Sexism" isn't relevant to the election.”
It is because 50% of the electorate are female. Besides, it’s not just misogyny he’s accused of but sexual assault. And the implications for his character.
“I like women's tits, am I sexist?”
How would that make you sexist? An argument by analogy is only as strong as the analogy itself. Are you suggesting that being partial to breasts is somehow analogous to boasting about sexual assault?
“The simple fact that you mention in your comment that Trump's "pussy grabbing" is far more "concerning" than Clinton clearly mishandling classified information that may have directly contributed to the deaths of American citizens in a foreign country, is all the evidence a rational person would need to conclude that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.”
Now that’s an ad hominem pur sang.
“The comment of "pussy grabbing" and the bungled handling of classified information is in no way comparable. It doesn't even belong in the same sentence.”
It’s precisely because they’re not comparable that I made the point. What Clinton did was dishonest, but Trump’s conduct is in a different league.
“I sincerely hope you are not an American and definitely hope you are not registered to vote because there are far too many people voting against Trump already because the media did a story about how 20 years ago he called a fat person "fat" or some other stupid, totally irrelevant topic.”
You’re trivializing what he has said and done.
Making derogatory comments about someone's character is an attempt to discredit them and by association the arguments they make.
Your "realness" about the media's role in this campaign is in not only admitting that the media has influenced voters, you've also scapegoated the responsibility of the media to be unbiased in reporting facts and blamed Trump for a media that was against him before he was even the candidate.
Trump has tried talking about the national debt, the illegal immigration problem, the overall infrastructure failures nationwide and the ineffective education system.
I came to the conclusion that someone (you) who considers possible "sexist" behavior (not rape or assault) far more important an issue than endangering American lives as not really knowing what you're talking about.
Let me be as concise as possible. Mishandling classified information is FAR more important than possible "sexist" behavior (or taxes for that matter). What Clinton did was dangerous and was clearly covered up by the current administration.
“Making derogatory comments about someone's character is an attempt to discredit them and by association the arguments they make.“
No, it isn’t. If I say a man is a misogynist (for example), that does not mean I am implying he is incapable of formulating a cogent argument. Examples such as this show that a sound syllogism cannot be formed with the premise ‘all derogatory comments about someone’s character suggest they are incapable of formulating a cogent argument’, which wards off any such interpretation of your assertion above. The milder interpretation of your assertion can be exposed as fallacious by means of the following syllogism:
Some derogatory comments about someone’s character suggest they are incapable of formulating a cogent argument.
This is a derogatory comment about someone’s character.
Therefore it suggests that that person is incapable of formulating a cogent argument.
“Your "realness" about the media's role in this campaign is in not only admitting that the media has influenced voters, you've also scapegoated the responsibility of the media to be unbiased in reporting facts and blamed Trump for a media that was against him before he was even the candidate.”
I’m sure you could have formulated this so it made sense. Yes, the media influences voters – that’s a given. The media does not have a responsibility to report facts in an unbiased manner – that’s a naïve assumption. Perhaps the BBC does (for example), as it’s publicly funded, but private media outlets have no such duty.
“Trump has tried talking about the national debt, the illegal immigration problem, the overall infrastructure failures nationwide and the ineffective education system.”
He has broached such subjects, but he doesn’t go into detail on existing or proposed policy, as he lacks the knowledge to do so. Saying ‘we’re going to build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it’ is not a detailed manifesto. Saying ‘we’re going to bar Muslims’ or ‘protect gun rights’ is not a detailed manifesto. He doesn’t deal in detail because: a) he lacks the requisite knowledge and experience; and b) the voter base he is deliberately targeting would not understand/have the patience for the detail anyway.
“I came to the conclusion that someone (you) who considers possible "sexist" behavior (not rape or assault) far more important an issue than endangering American lives as not really knowing what you're talking about.”
This is a straw man fallacy, because Clinton’s actions did not endanger American lives. Boasting about sexual assault and having several women come forward and say ‘yes, he did those things to me’ is suggestive of something more egregious than sexism.
I am showing myself to be capable of formulating cogent arguments whilst avoiding fallacies and pointing out the fallacies made by my interlocutors. The 'I can't take you seriously' or 'you don't know what you're talking about' card is not going to stand up to scrutiny.
“Let me be as concise as possible. Mishandling classified information is FAR more important than possible "sexist" behavior (or taxes for that matter). What Clinton did was dangerous and was clearly covered up by the current administration.”
I don’t agree with you on this point, but you’re entitled to your opinion. Incidentally, I don’t criticize Trump for not paying taxes – he has used the system legally. It is perhaps morally reprehensible, but many other businessmen would do the same in his position.