In theory he would have the power to call for his hardcore supporters to not accept the results when the time comes. He could cause tangible civil unrest by emotionally riling them up essentially...

I stumbled upon this while surfing ebaumsworld lastnight, (Yes I know, unforgivable), and while at first glance it seems campy and overblown or something out of infowars, it actually puts forward some pretty unambiguous evidence of "the rigging of the election". The first video mainly features a seemingly well positioned DNC connected mover and shaker (Scott Foval) who brags openly to an undercover reporter about using engineered violence in order to impugn a target politician, group of supporters, event, campaign, or party. The second video features the same undercover reporter approaching mainly the same person about organizing potential voter fraud.




I'm reticent to formulate any conclusive opinions on this as of yet, I only just last night and have not gotten a chance to investigate things more deeply, but one thing I have found which lends credulity to this exposé is that the individuals it features seem to have been unceremoniously defrocked and excommunicated.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/

Generally in order to answer the question "how damning is this?" I would first try to get a sense of the actual gravity of the particular grievances the film airs before trying to get a sense of how representative of the democratic party (or even both major parties) these grievances are as a whole (which might be decidedly difficult).

This is what trump meant by "paying people to beat people up" I guess...

Elections are absolutely rigged, have been for some time, the obviousness is reaching new heights as the desperateness of the regime to cling to it's shroud of legitimacy increases. Literally going to be like watching someone you 100% know is lying, try continue to sell the lie onto self destruction.

That said! There is over 4000 words in this thread and only two references to Jill Stein.
Don't vote for the idiot or the corrupt one, vote greens.
Having problems with that? Rewatch the Idiocracy scene when the discussion on watering plants with something other than Brawndo takes place. - Voting for Jill is literally as plainly obvious as watering plants with water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA)

I don't think anyone visiting these forums needs a reminder that there are idiots out there. So please, as cognitive thinkers, take lead and point out the obviousness of how to proceed, there has never been a better time, literally even the idiots are prep'd to listen to actual reason in face of an obvious rigged election.

Just out of curiosity, do you work directly or indirectly for Jill Stein, her party, or her campaign?

Nope.

Not even strictly in support of all her policies. However, an inanimate walnut would be less of a threat to the species survival than Trump or Clinton, sooooo, vote Jill! ^_^

Elections are absolutely rigged, have been for some time, the obviousness is reaching new heights as the desperateness of the regime to cling to it's shroud of legitimacy increases. Literally going to be like watching someone you 100% know is lying, try continue to sell the lie onto self destruction. — Lexovix

It seems like a lot of people are saying that the "elections are rigged", but then refer to the campaign not the election itself. What Trump seems to be saying is the actual ballot/voting process is "rigged", so if he doesn't win, you will know that it was due to some conspiracy to make sure he doesn't win, and not the true voice of the people. There is very little information on how they think the election will be rigged, although some are mentioning many people being registered to vote who "shouldn't be". But the evidence is that there have only been 31 official cases of voter fraud in the past 16 years.

If we are talking about campaigns. Well, we have evidence of tampering from every side for a long time. The Watergate scandal was probably the most public evidence. There was some evidence that the Democrat party had sought to sabotage Bernie Sanders' nomination. Politics was probably always dirty, we just have a better lens into it.

That said! There is over 4000 words in this thread and only two references to Jill Stein.
Don't vote for the idiot or the corrupt one, vote greens.
Having problems with that? Rewatch the Idiocracy scene when the discussion on watering plants with something other than Brawndo takes place. - Voting for Jill is literally as plainly obvious as watering plants with water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA) — Lexovix

I've been planning on voting for Jill Stein since the election got started. But it is maybe not good advice for everyone. I live in a "blue state", with a 95% chance of going to Hillary. That is where my state goes no matter how I vote, so I might as well vote for whoever I want just to give them a chance next election. I would even support people voting for Gary Johnson since he has the largest following of any 3rd party candidate, voting for him might push him into "major party" status and a 3-party election would be more choices even if he doesn't win. Also, nobody has mentioned Gloria la Riva, of the Peace and Feedom Party, who is on my ballot, (3 women and 2 men!). If you are in a swing or battleground state, then you need a really good reason for not voting for Trump or HIllary.

Even though I like the movie Idiocracy, I don't think it is that persuasive an analogy, (anyone could say the same thing). Maybe a better approach is that Jill Stein is much closer to Bernie Sanders on issues, (main difference is she isn't silent on the issue of guns). She is the highest polling candidate who is against further military action in the Middle-East. I don't agree with her on a lot of the issues, or even what she says about the other candidates.

We could also all get behind Gary Johnson, because, as the Libertarian Party likes to say, "they want to get hired to a job so they can make it obsolete".

Wonderful, feel as though we could be completely polarized on opinions and would still of appreciated the quality of that post. Previous philosophy forums have been disappointing to state the least. So thank you!

By rigged I was referring to the idea of presidents being selected, not elected. By that I mean; and firstly, I am nice person, except I would of put Goebbels out of business had I been insane enough to support that (whatever word is incredibly worse than depravity). Swaying public opinion and ensuring the selected, is elected.

I would like to point out that I am Australian and your understanding on whatever you lot call whatever is going on ever there, that at least, used to be called an election, is beyond my own.
Hadn't actually realized Gary Johnson's was closest to the point, for example.

Uh, so to offering what I can. Psychologically, the growing controversy over climate change will I think escalate throughout the next decade, this should in turn increase the amount of voters considering voting Greens. From what I understand, the threshold to get into the debates is 15%? Climate change is not exactly a casual topic and with that I do not feel as though reaching 15% would be overly difficult for a party that literally advocates environmentalism by way of it's name.

Getting the parties that aren't in it for the ego together for some hardcore strategy could literally be the reason life exists in 2099.


Side note, someone already connected over there wanna fly me over? Happy to unite the species in my spare time, this vehicle is confusingly ahead of its time.

Uh, so to offering what I can. Psychologically, the growing controversy over climate change will I think escalate throughout the next decade, this should in turn increase the amount of voters considering voting Greens. From what I understand, the threshold to get into the debates is 15%? Climate change is not exactly a casual topic and with that I do not feel as though reaching 15% would be overly difficult for a party that literally advocates environmentalism by way of it's name. — Lexovix

Sometimes you feel like this in the US:



In US debates, nobody is talking about climate change. It seems most talk, even within the US Green Party has been to change the subject to investing in clean energy or carbon taxes. I've lived in several countries, even spent a month in Australia, and know that all that talk is useless. In fact, I've been following a lot of scientific discussions saying we have less than 15 years. The Green Party seems to have put more focus on Bernie Sander's promises about cancelling school loan debts.

Urgh. "YOLO" is a fairly common part of belief systems over there as well isn't it?
Very little bothers me to a greater extent than fools that think their participation in existence is limited to once ever and they spend that time as advocates or at least facilitators, of violence, prejudice and greed.

Very few ways to create a greater amount of complacent and docile beings scared of speaking out against corruption incase their *'"only"'* appearance in existence is snuffed out, than to have them parroting yolo based monotheism ideology while being in 'the greatest country on earth'. Fairly sure a disgusting % of the population sidelines activism because they think an omnipotent being is going to fix everything.

-.-

Ah, yes, the election is so rigged that we've somehow come upon two of the most corrupt presidential candidates in US history, accompanied, of course, by another two of the most laughably pitiful and distinctly unintelligent third party candidates the US has also ever seen.

Why only now that the election process has come under widespread scrutiny is beyond me.

Trump: bump, clump, crump, dump, frump, grump, hump, jump, lump, pump, rump, thump, slump, sump, ump.

You forgot : plump, chump, schlump and stump!