Donald Trump keeps saying that the election might be stolen from his supporters. The main reason that he cites â voter fraud â is nonsense. But election fraud is a real problem. From Florida in 2000 to Ohio in 2004 to the Democratic primaries this last year, there have been very troubling examples of presidential elections that have been corrupted. But media gatekeepers don’t want you to think about that.
Stolen/Rigged
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
19 Comments. Leave new
When ever the corporate media attempts to put on its serious face and takes a policy position, I have come to expect that there is a part of the story they are not presenting that will in some way negatively affect their profits or access to power.
I expect the corporate media will find its performance of analingus on Hillary preferable to the same with Donald.
That’s a lot like say that “I’d rather suck my nourishment out of the urinal than the bowl.” Paper(or plastic)-bag companies should experience a revenue burst.
DanD
Keep in mind, I don’t support Trump. I think he is simply a worse version of Dubya — a spoiled kid who will, hopefully, be surrounded by people greedy enough to not destroy the planet with A-bombs — who will remain, mostly, a figurehead. All the real work, one way or another, will be done by the admin staff.
Still, I think I saw a different debate. As I remember it, Trump was asked if he’d accept the results of the vote despite saying the election was rigged. Keep in mind, you don’t get the time to give a carefully nuanced explanatory response in these debates. You can’t speak in paragraphs. You have to get it out fast. Trump’s response, in essence, was that we’ll have to wait until the election.
And everyone is shocked.
Let me give you the modern-day example. “Please tell me if you will agree that the next Star Wars movie will be great.”
Your response is probably something like, “Look, the last few have been garbage. I’d have to be an idiot to agree before the movie’s actually out that it’s great. Or that it’s bad. I have to wait until the movie’s out. Then I can tell you if I will agree it was a great movie (or a bad one).”
All I heard Trump say was that: 1. He thinks there’s hanky-panky with the election (Ted’s cartoon shows plenty of examples of such h-p). 2. Possibly, by raising enough fuss, he will thwart the hanky panky. 3. So he won’t say yea or nay until the actual election results come in. If HRC gets 104% of the vote in Texas, is Trump — or anyone — supposed to say, “Oh, yeah. Totally fair election. How can I dispute these results? Wouldn’t want the Republic to fracture because someone finally called BS on BS results.” Of course not. This is, regrettably, an example of what Sarah Palin would call a “gotcha moment from the lamestream media.” And in this instance, I think she’s right.
If the election results are suspicious, why should Trump, you, me, anyone, accept them? So why agree to it unconditionally beforehand? I wonder what will happen if some hackers flip some votes in New York and award the state to Donald Trump. Will HRC be excoriated for not accepting the results of the election?
Great Star Wars analogy, Alex.
It’s also like awarding a Nobel Peace Prize before the candidate did anything rather than after a record is available to vote on.
That’s why I always refer to Obama’s “Nobel Speech Prize”, because that was all he did before the award was given.
The moderator at the debate said every candidate in the US has always accepted the election results. Completely false, of course. Many have challenged the results, the most recent challenge being in 2000, as Mr Rall notes (and Bush, jr was appointed to office by just one vote, after which Gore conceded).
If Trump can find any way to contest Hillary’s seemingly inevitable victory, he should do so. That’s the American Way. And after the courts rule against him, he, like Gore, can complain, but cannot change the court ruling.
I don’t get this either. Did they expect him of all people to say: “I will be a pushover just like Al Gore”?
Didn’t he already refuse to support the Republican nominee and rule out running as an independent in case he lost – only a few months ago? Didn’t that stance help him steal the media spotlight then as well?
And there would be much more of a case for party loyalty, as opposed to unconditional loyalty to an arcane election process held in the absence of international observers that is prematurely called by Fox and CNN and then ratified by a partisan judicial system which can stop recounts of paper ballots, if those even exist.
The media, much like DJT, have no short-term memory, let alone long-term. Luckily we have Ted and Greg Palast.
There is no doubt in my mind that this election was rigged when Hillary conceded to Obama — one of those “back-room” deals. 🙁
George Soros owns the power to rig the voting machines that at least 35 million Americans will be voting on.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/
Which billionaire do you feel like trusting?
DanD
«Which billionaire do you feel like trusting?» I trust them all, DanD – the more money they have, the more I trust them….
Henri
Good answer … but what do you trust them to do?
D
DanD, I trust them to continue doing what has to be done to maintain their power and to rip the rest of us off – even if it means unleashing a world war which puts an end to the brief happy life of H sapiens sapiens on this planet. I am not looking forward to 20 January 2017….
Henri
Even the Corporate Media trolls are making some conspiracy-theory sense. Ever since the Robber-Baron days, the .001% have hidden their own agendas of tyranny behind a philanthropic facade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATgLwSCrjUk
Which multi-billionaire is protecting Glen Beck’s revelation of truth? There still is some competition at the top.
DanD
Rigged elections ?!! In the USA ?!! Surely you jest, Ted ?…
Henri
The real irony? The real “rigging”? Try this out for size.
1. A whole lotta HRC supporters said something much like this at the beginning: “Look, we know she’s flawed, but we gotta think of the Supreme Court. That’s the prize. Do you want the Republicans putting in the justices? Those justices will shape the court for at least the next 30 years!”
2. A whole lotta HRC supporters then added something like this: “Look, Bernie’s a nice guy, but he’s a socialist. The Republicans will eat him alive. He just can’t win. He’s simply too pie-in-the-sky.”
To ensure #2, the DNC and the Clinton campaign cohort fixed it to stick a knife in Bernie Sanders’ back. He never had a chance, the whole game was rigged against him, but he still came mighty close.
Now. Let’s look where we are. Trump ate the Republican field alive. Went right through them like a yuge knife through butter. HRC has gotten the election handed to her via a 10-year-old tape recording that shows Trump behaving like a pig.
A whole lotta smug HRC supporters. “See? See? We toldya that Bernie Sanders didn’t have a chance. You gotta look at the big picture. Play the long game.”
Fine. Here’s the long game, here’s the big picture. HRC will ascend to her throne, crown herself, and discover that she can’t get any of her justices through to the Supreme Court. The Republicans will block them.
HRC’s supporters are exhausted. This was a horribly dirty election and once it’s over, most of her people are going to go back to whatever they were doing before because, for a lot of them, elections are only up to the voting day. They don’t participate. Bernie Sanders had SWARMS of people; he was building an economic movement (revolutions are always from the poor).
The Republicans might have blocked him too on the Supreme Court, but two years from January 2017, HRC’s support will be nonexistent. She will not be able to get a 60-seat majority in the Senate. Sanders would have; I’ll bet all I know on it because he would have kept the young people angry and engaged. And those young people understood the 2016 election was a beachhead. Take the White House first, two years later, take the Supreme Court and the House. Bernie would have told them that. And they would have voted for Bernie because they trusted him.
That was the long game to play.
You got that right.
On my ballot, I’d have written Sanders in but Arkansas doesn’t allow write-ins — so I voted for Dr. Jill Stein.
I fear, alex_the_tired, that Ms Clinton’s «long game» will be overwhelmed by her «short game», i e, the provocation of a US war with Russia. In that context, the issue of new US Supreme Court justices is, I suggest, moot….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
You probably already are aware of this (as well-informed as you are), but Russia has requested to have election observers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana.
The requests (of course) were denied.
🙂
Speaking of Russia. Here’s one from the Pravda days, adapted for the election night tweet feed of Donald Trump:
“Tired Hillary. I placed second in the election. She only managed to beat one other candidate.”
I am, indeed, aware of that fact, mein verehrter Lehrer. Those Russians have their nerve – the very idea that voting fraud could occur in the sovereign states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana is an insult – ein Schimpf ! – against the good people who live there. And everybody knows that Russians are the very ëpitomé of evil and not to be trusted….
Henri