No, Ogion, I'm not even listening to Trump at this point and I'm talking about the primary. The "issues" surrounding the primary are incredible. The party elite openly and explicitly preferring one candidate over another. The debates during the primary were shortened, delayed, and ultimately minimized, just as the debates between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova in Florida were (actually, a better metric for divulging the impeccable morals and uncanny for-the-people attitude [yes, that was sarcasm] would be to look at the race between DWS and Canova, which was basically DWS hiding in DC, avoiding debates, avoiding the issues of her constituency, and using her name recognition as a long-time incumbent to shut down grassroots opposition - good stuff). The media was counting superdelegate votes before they had even been cast or counted as if they were unchangeable. Hillary Clinton received money through the party meant for down-ticket campaigns. Thousands of voters were mysteriously and shockingly purged in numerous states. If the exit polling discrepancies that happened here happened in Zimbabwe or Iraq or somewhere volatile, it would have resulted in the United States dropping in SEALs and mandating "freedom" by overriding the corrupted electoral process. New York had issues at the polls. California had issues at the polls. Huge states. In Phoenix, there were 60 polling places open for 1.3 million people. Thousands of provisional ballots may have gone uncounted across numerous states.
Now, before you go off the rails and go through my incomplete checklist of potential "issues with the polls" in the primary - since I can't say fraud - or before you go apeshit and call me a conspiracy theorist, please check yourself. Hillary won the primary, and though I won't go so far as to say "fair and square," I am not going to say that without these issues that she couldn't have won it. I will say that the great majority of Bernie voters, myself included, are voting for her because she, as the second- or third-most hated candidate for POTUS in modern history (Goldwater competes with her), is wildly better than the alternative. It's like private school versus public school, only tuition is no object. It's an easy choice. I will also say that people who continue to defend the Democratic Party as a whole are wasting their time, wasting their breath, and are going to end up on the wrong side of history, but for now, Hillary has the vote of the establishment and its opposition and before demonizing us as brainbomb has spent the last 6 months doing, remember that without us being sensible human beings, Hillary could quite possibly lose this election. You're welcome. Good ol' bo isn't a total dimwit.
You claim that "all the efforts to make sure black people can't vote" on the part of Republicans is fraud, and you're absolutely 100% right. The Republican Party has been practicing voter suppression of this sort for years. As such, when thousands of voters were left off the rolls in New York City, regardless of who they might have voted for, is this not election fraud? Ignore the fact that 82% of New York's counties went for Bernie; I don't care. Is this somehow okay? Is this mismanagement somehow acceptable? You don't accidentally lose thousands of people. The government has soooo many tools for knowing who is who, who believes what, who says what, who eats what for breakfast, and then they lose track? Come on. The AG's office conducted an investigation, concluded that these problems existed, and fired a bunch of people, but you can't get rid of one batch of bad eggs without checking the rest of the yield, and that's exactly what happened in the primary. How is this not fraud?
To continue harping on New York, remember those pesky exit polls? *After* the mysterious purges, the exit polls had Hillary winning the state by between 4 and 5 percent - a perfectly reasonable estimate, comparable to a number of other states with massive urban populations that basically overruled their rural counterparts (not complaining, that's just how it goes). Exit polls are viewed as one of the most reliable sources for predicting the final results. They are not definitive at all, but in the words of Representative John Conyers, who is a sitting member of the House Judiciary Committee, they are "but one indicia or warning that something may have gone wrong" when the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual results are outside of the mathematical margin of error.
Of course, as we know, Hillary won New York by a whopping 16%, at least 11% higher than the exit polls predicted. This is far, far outside of that margin of error. I remember reading that the odds of that were something like 1:100,000, I think on Huff Post but I don't know. Between this and the voter purges in the state, forgive me if I find the results, whether she would have won the state without these totally-not-voter-fraud things occurring or not, a little bit suspect. (poll results: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york)
The same story could be told about a number of other states. Arizona was ugly, California was ugly, Missouri was ugly, and on and on.
Again, before you go off the rails, understand me. I'm voting for Clinton, every single Bernie supporter I know is voting for Clinton (all the centrist Sanders fans that I know are voting Clinton instead of Johnson, largely because I have convinced them to, and I know a lot of wackjob environmentalists, way more than myself, that really don't want to vote for Clinton over Jill Stein but are anyway), and she should win this election with the independent vote. The myriad of factors, though, combined with the recent-yet-ancient revelations that the DNC actually made contingencies to ensure a Clinton victory (*gasp* - shocking, I know!), the media calling states like Illinois and Missouri, which were essentially ties, Clinton victories over and over and over again in order to make it seem like Bernie's campaign wasn't doing very well, the stories that people in the Bernie campaign were defecting, the utter ignorance of issues surrounding Hillary Clinton and her campaign until the man-of-the-hour and TV ratings sucker Donald Trump started bringing them up, and the fact that the Clinton campaign never showed the integrity to even acknowledge all of these voters that *could be voting for her* that were left off the rolls in countless states let alone support a manual recount that likely still would have had her on top, give me a bit of a bad taste in the first election that I have been able to participate in on a national level.
Is it unbelievable that the Democratic Party doesn't have the same moral shortcomings as the Republican Party as far as suppressing people who don't fit their agenda goes? Politicians are politicians about 98.5% of the time. The other 1.5% are either running grassroots campaigns that people desperately want to vote for but never hear about, sitting on small city council seats and trying to fix their own community (which is what I was always taught politicians wanted to do when they ran for office as opposed to simply working their way up the ladder and leaving a toxic fart of nuclear radiation in their wake), or becoming social, environmental, economic, or whatever else activists on both the right and the left. Why should the Democratic Party get a pass just because the Republican Party bred Trump, fed Trump, clothed Trump, and ultimately nominated Trump is indefensible?
Third Presidential Debate
)
)
)
)
