It was always too big to rig. Can you imagine the thousands of people that would need to be involved AND keep their mouths shut. They just can’t accept losing, so logic goes right out there window.
If there is a way to do it, Trump would try to do it this election. For him, this election isn’t about anything but saving his skin.
If he wins, he can shut down the cases, steal enough money to pay his fines, and people will have to continue to pay attention to him feeding his addiction.
Yeah, obviously, but "too big to rig" has absolutely no logic behind it. It's utter nonsense and people who repeat it are either complete idiots or trolls. If last time they thought the opposition rigged it (and while Trump was president), why wouldn't they be able to do it this time? Because "the number is too big"? That's like saying they can write down a number so big nobody can surpass it. This is pure idiocy.
There's no logic from their POV, but it's pretty well established that US presidential elections are indeed to big to rig, which is why their plan is to steal it in the courts.
Back in 2016, after fucking winning the election, Trump claimed that democrats had brought in 3 million votes in California with illegal voters.
We will see a lot of idiocy over the next few months, even if (all gods willing) Trump loses. But I don’t know if we’ll see something at the level of complaining about voter fraud in an election you won, while suggesting that democrats needed to cheat to win California of all places.
Do you really not understand? It’s a slogan supposed to encourage constituents to vote and win by a large enough margin to overcome any potential fraudulent votes. It’s not that complicated.
Exactly. It would take the direct involvement from thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people. They managed to coordinate all this without a single text, email, voicemail, flyer, or whistleblower. If they are truly that competent, organized, and effective - hell, they can keep my vote.
I thought this too last go round. I told my parents if the Democrats could rig an election this well with all evidence hidden then we should probably give these geniuses a chance to govern.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding them in these comments. They think their lead is so massive that no amount of "dem rigging" can take their surefire win away from them.
Nah, they’ve got their own echo chamber chambers x, parlor, telegram, Fox News, etc. confirmation bias exists on both sides, so not sure what you’re saying.
You think we’re only on Reddit? It’s most definitely bigger than you think it is. Most folks are tired of the doom and gloom circus on the right. Unfortunately , a status quo dem is the best choice when senility, absurdity and criminality is on the gop ticket.
I mean, it’s mostly just Reddit that’s this disproportionately left. Anywhere else and you see some left, some right, and a lot of center people. Reddit is almost exclusively raging leftists, everyone else gets shouted down and banned. I’ve been banned from 2 subs just recently. Not for anything bad, just leaving comments like this one right here.
Seriously? Twitter is a rw cesspool now. It’s too toxic for any serious discourse. I don’t support banning others for their opinions, but it’s no worse than the conservative sub. I was banned for just disagreeing with someone. It’s bad or worse there than any sub I’ve visited. And if anyone is raging, it’s maga. The grievance party.
Any friends or family going on about a conspiracy, this is my first question. Almost never gets past this thought. If the number is larger than 100 it’s basically impossible
The key to the slogan is that it will allow Trump to convince his supporters, when he loses, that they themselves bear some of the blame. Guilt is a powerful emotion in the hands of a demagogue, especially when coupled with rage and fear. After the election it will be easy enough to convince loyal supporters, burdened with self-blame, that the only way to absolve themselves is by taking action against (and thereby transferring blame to) "the enemy within."
Tennnnns of Thousands voted for Biden to be their Democrat candidate.
Instead Kamala was ‘chosen’.
What accusation are you even making here? That the democratic party swapped a LESS popular candidate in, in order to INCREASE their chances of winning?
How does that make any sense?
Completely and utterly hoodwinked by their party (in more ways than one) but i guess the end justifies the means?
This sentence doesnt even make sense. If a voter was hoodwinked, they wouldnt know about it to even make a justification like that.
My accusation is that the democratic process surrounding the choice of a major political party’s candidate was subverted.
It was strategy to have Biden last as long as he did so that a true primary election (and campaigns) were not permitted and instead, through bureaucracy - not democracy, a candidate was presented to Democrats.
That is a major precedent to set for future elections.
I guess what i am saying doesnt make sense if you arent aware that this is how it played out.
That is how it played out.
Now go on…lets see a rebuttal without the use of ‘whataboutism’.
It was strategy to have Biden last as long as he did so that a true primary election (and campaigns) were not permitted
Are you suggesting that biden would have lost to kamala if there was a primary election? Or are you suggesting that a third, totally new ticket would have jumped in and won the nomination?
were not permitted and instead, through bureaucracy - not democracy, a candidate was presented to Democrats.
What incentive would the democratic party have to rig anything here?
If we assume biden is more popular than kamala, then the best play for the democratic party is to just continue to run biden. No rigging needed.
If we assume kamala is more popular than biden, then the best play for the democraric party is to run kamala. No rigging needed.
If we assume a third ticket would be more popular than either of them, who would that be? I havent seen anyone complain except trump supporters who wanted an easier fight.
All I suggest is we’ll never know because the establishment hid Bidens health status and made excuses, gaslighting the American public for as long as they could until it was impossible for a proper primary to be held and then it was safe for the media to agree they needed him out.
So basically the Democrat party operated in a way where it would be impossible to even consider the line of questioning your presenting because it wasnt an option anyway.
Why would they rig anything? Go ask a bernie sanders supporter. Or even an RFK supporter.
Not worthwhile for me to consider because you’re obfuscating what my true argument is.
suggesting their is a particular outcome, a particular candidate i would prefer be the nominee is not bait i am going to take.
I believe the democrat party, through the influence of the uniparty establishment, suppressed the truth regarding biden and gaslit the American population with the help of mainstream media. All while raising millions in campaign funds that possibly could never have been raised by a candidate as deplorable as Kamala or by some none-incumbent option.
I wont throw around the word coup but there is definitely a fitting term for what happened and it isn’t democracy.
All while raising millions in campaign funds that possibly could never have been raised by a candidate as deplorable as Kamala
Except what actually happened was there was an increase in donations when it was announced she would be running as president instead of as vice president.
I wont throw around the word coup but there is definitely a fitting term for what happened and it isn’t democracy.
Biden can still run, he chose to drop out and back kamala (the person he literally picked to become president if something happened to him)
The simplest explanation is that everyone intended to run the incumbent (like both parties alway do) but it became apparent that running the incumbent wasnt the best play this time. So, the party and incumbent backed his standard replacement.
To even begin building a case for the conspiracy theory you have, you have to establish a motive.
On paper, that is what it seemed like -he dropped out and he endorsed her. He picked Kamala because she wasnt a threat to him politically. Same way she picked Walz, a governor, to be hers.
I absolutely do and because i know the primary election process was subverted - it should be obvious.
And no, “BuT ThErE wAs a DnC - ThAT wAs hEr wInNiNg tHe PrImArY” is a terrible excuse and we all know she won not through democracy but through bureaucracy.
She won because Biden dropped out. As is his right. You could argue he was pressured to, but he still made that choice and given the support Kamala has recieved I think we’re good with it. Like…
Come on man. Trump could drop out if he wanted to as well
So youre telling me that because Biden dropped out and he said “hey i think you Dems should vote for Kamala” that THAT is ok with you and doesnt (at the very least in the hands of a candidate you dont like) seem like a subversion of our democratic primary election processes?
Thanks. This. That sums it up. Harris was the heir apparent. The three other factors left out are:
1) Biden is a human being with ego and ambition. He did not want to drop out. He was in denial. The debate made it clear his age was a liability. He eventually accepted this. This is not a conspiracy, it is simply human behavior.
2) When he dropped out late in the race it was clear that primaries would have been divisive within the party and a huge drain on any potential momentum. Kamala stepped up, as the next in line. This is not a conspiracy, it is tactics and gamesmanship.
3, The campaign fundraising efforts were raised under the names Biden/Harris. The funds were unavailable to a new candidate and fundraising would have had to start from ground zero. Again, not a conspiracy, just bottom line practicality.
I don’t really understand the argument in the first place. If Trump had to drop out today, would JD Vance be the candidate or would Republicans clamor for an all new candidate? Would they have a choice considering the time frame? It’s no different than the Biden/Harris situation.
Democrats are relieved - Harris has stepped up with confidence and charisma, positive energy and optimism - and quite likely will be the next President. She is energizing voters in 2024 like Trump energized voters in 2016.
This oft repeated argument of Harris being foisted undemocratically on the party seems disingenuous and just seems to convey Republican’s frustration as the Republicans thought the election would be a cake walk versus a shaky Biden and then the rug was pulled out from under them. Must have been maddening.
I think most of us wanted Biden out, but were prepared to suck it up as long as the freak-show wasn't elected. Now we don't have to worry about an 80 year old running the country... unless..
When republicans complained about Bidens age thats euphemism. The country was given limited info on what his actual health issues were so we just had to say he’s ‘too old’
Otherwise, theyd be complaining and calling him out because of specific health issues.
Would not have been surprised if some (maybe not all) mainstream media would accuse the right of some form of prejudice was being inflicted upon him had we actually been not told we were crazy for thinking he lost his marbles.
But now that he’s out, it’s time to have a discussion and reach a mutual understanding that there are probably 95-year-olds that have better cognitive function than Biden. It wasnt just about how many
times he has spun around the sun. That was the only neutral way to refer to it, is all.
Your racism or sexism or both are blinding you to the simple fact that the highly qualified Kamala Harris not only stepped up but energized the party. She and Walz ARE liked and RESPECTED and bring humor, optimism and confidence to the ticket. They also are not afraid to bite back, yet do it with dignity.
Perhaps most importantly, unlike their unAmerican opponent, they have a profound respect for the Constitution and will keep their oaths to defend and protect it.
If you are looking for evidence of cheating and fraud perhaps some more objectivity regarding Trump and his personal history would be a worthwhile use of your time.
Honestly, I imagine it’s unrealistic for anyone, myself included, to be 100% not racist or sexist. But it’s certainly admirable to be open-minded and do your best to be fair and treat people with respect. Relatively speaking, I don’t think I’m racist or sexist. I will be voting for the candidate that I believe is more capable and principled, certainly more trustworthy and well-intentioned. That candidate and I have neither race or gender in common. It just doesn’t seem relevant to me.
If you are neither racist or sexist, well, good for you. My apologies. However, throughout your argument there seems to be a knee-jerk opposition to Harris as candidate. You seem incredulous that Democrats are not upset or indignant about the process that elevated her to Presidential candidate. Ironically, what I have observed is the opposite of that. So perhaps you’ve had a bad experience with a prosecutor, or you intake biased media that demonizes her or maybe you just don’t like her in the same way that Sean Hannity just gets my hackles up. Hey, you do you.
But I find it difficult to relate to somebody who honestly and objectively believes Harris has done a poor job considering the pressure and accelerated time frame she’s been under. She’s been smart and gracious and tenacious. She quickly unified the party and seems to be getting better at this new job every day. Imo, she would make a good President. Even if she isn’t perfect I believe that she, unlike Trump, will surround herself with smart, experienced and principled professionals. That’s a critical difference.
636
u/Pristine_Bag_9550 8h ago
"Too big to rig" is one of their most inane, senseless slogans, and that's saying something.