Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Will talk of rigged elections end up hurting Trump?

Trumps problem isn't the content of his message, it's his presentation.

He's not wrong.

Trumps biggest enemy is the media...If I've got this election wrong, it'll be the first time since Bush lost to Clinton and that election was complicated by Perot...I see a landslide in Trumps favor...

For me, it's the fact that someone finally had the balls to talk about it!
As I mentioned in a previous post, the 59 districts in Philadelphia make up almost 1/3 of PA's popular votes. And The Democratic machine brazenly cheats every election. There's a 5 or 6 percent buffer built in for any democratic candidate. In a state with a little over 4.5 million voters, this amounts to over 200,000 illegitimate or fraudulent votes.
Every election cycle, conservative news talks about the Philly turnout, always 110% or more, and always 100% democrat. In 2012 in these 59 districts, there were over 19,600 votes for BamBam, and not a single one for Romney!
As a lifelong conservative Pennsylvanian, all I can do is get pissed and shake my head.
I would love to see Trump clean up and destroy these Democrat machines in Several different states, and put in safeguards against election fraud.
At least the Dems are honest about one thing, (accidentally) democratic elections are one of the fundamental American rights.
7mm

I know that while Trump's insistence that the elections are rigged against him has something of a rallying effect on some supporters, does anyone think it may end up making some say that if that's the case, why bother? and not participate?
It seems like pushing that line of thought over and over could be a two-edged sword.

John

I can't argue with that. Best platform, worst candidate.

I don't know but it sure fires up his base.

If he'd run any kind of campaign at all, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Trump would have a better chance if he just quit playing the victim card.

It just takes the focus off Hillary and Wikileaks.

What kind of campaign would you have Trump run?

There is no focus on wikileaks. The media won't cover it.

One where he listened to Kellyanne Conway and followed her advice.

One where his surrogates weren't having to defend his latest ego-driven outbursts.

I'm talking about HIS interaction with the media. If he weren't constantly having to defend his comments, he could prosecute HER in the media.

What kind of campaign would you have Trump run?

I don't know but it sure fires up his base. And, we all know there is some truth to his statement. I do wish he would throttle is done some.

kwg

You know he is 6 % BEHIND in most polls..... right?

Obviously I hope your two polls are correct.

Trumps problem isn't the content of his message, it's his presentation.

He's not wrong.

You know he is 6 % BEHIND in most polls..... right?

Obviously I hope your two polls are correct.

I can't argue with that. Best platform, worst candidate.

If Trump's goal is to fire up the base it is working but the numbers don't add up. Trump will not elected with a fired up base unless he finds a way to add 12 points from other groups like Women, Latinos and Blacks and there is no chance that will happen. Its just like his rallies...Lots of excited voters but no one new and just not enough of them. The base is a shrinking but motivated group and the GOP needs to understand this group is flat out dying off.

One where he listened to Kellyanne Conway and followed her advice.

One where his surrogates weren't having to defend his latest ego-driven outbursts.

The womanizing thing is largely (biggley?), if not completely, horsechit.


The guy is just a yankee clown shoe. He invites ridicule.

He also has my vote. I'd love to see President Clown Shoe!

There is no focus on wikileaks. The media won't cover it.

If Trump pulled off a surprise win, then yes, his talk about a rigged election would hurt him as he would then be accused of being the one doing the rigging.

If Trump pulled off a surprise win, then yes, his talk about a rigged election would hurt him as he would then be accused of being the one doing the rigging.

Jeff O sure lives in the right place libtard OR

The surprise will be if he loses. It will also mean that the election was stolen.

No, Bristoe, it will not.

Don't go full-retard on this one guys. C'mon. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The surprise will be if he loses. It will also mean that the election was stolen.

The Commies have made their appearance in the thread,...now here comes the perpetually butthurt Ted Cruz faction.

Get over it.

They are also increasingly viewed as irrational and somewhat frightening by the majority in America.

Since you lean left you believe all the pablum presented by the Left Media. How do you explain the lack of attendees at Clinton rallies and the huge crowds at Trump rallies if the narrative is true?

The surprise will be if he loses. It will also mean that the election was stolen.

Since you lean left you believe all the pablum presented by the Left Media. How do you explain the lack of attendees at Clinton rallies and the huge crowds at Trump rallies if the narrative is true?

The Commies have made their appearance in the thread,...now here comes the perpetually butthurt Ted Cruz faction.

Get over it.

Trump's presidential campaign is hurting his businesses

Foot traffic in Trump-branded hotels, casinos and golf courses in the U.S. has declined since he announced his White House run in June 2015, according to a new report from Foursquare. As the election has worn on, it has gotten worse: traffic year-over-year has been down by at least 14% every month since March.

It appears as though Trump's low ratings among women voters has also hurt his businesses' standing among women consumers. Trump properties have seen a double-digital decrease in visits from women this year, and the gap has widened since March 2016. Trump properties in blue states appear to have been hit harder across the board and especially among women who live there, whereas foot traffic in purple states has been a bit bouncier.

Last weekend bankers and dignitaries from around the world descended on Washington for the annual World Bank–IMF meetings. But just a few days before the conference, rooms were not only still available at Trump International, they were heavily discounted. On October 2, a deluxe room, with a rack rate of $805, could be had for as low $445 a night on Hotels.com. All other five-star D.C. downtown hotels were sold out. By Wednesday, October 5, weekend stays in the deluxe rooms were marked down to $404 per night on Trump International’s own website. The more luxurious 500-square-foot executive rooms, with a city view and marble bath, were only $484. By comparison, at the Waldorf-Astoria in Georgetown, the only available rooms were $1,139 per night, according to Hotels.com.

Since you lean left you believe all the pablum presented by the Left Media. How do you explain the lack of attendees at Clinton rallies and the huge crowds at Trump rallies if the narrative is true?

Try behaving like a reasonable adult.

I think the perpetually pu$$yhurt Cruz faction is here to stay for the next 4 years, minimum, no matter who wins. They'll be bleeding all over this forum from their eyes, from their wherever for a long time to come.

My assumption is that you want people to vote for Trump. I'm doing it, because I always vote against the liberal. Do you really think that acting like a star-struck kid is gonna help? Try a little honesty for a change. People like you scare other people away from the polls and contrary to what some of you seem to think...you can't win without them.

Because Clinton is an uninspiring, tainted candidate that nobody really likes.

Problem is, generally speaking, Trump is liked even less and after the debates is seen by most as unsuited temperamentally and intellectually for the job.

You can't alienate women, minorities, and centrists and win. Period. The angry old white guy vote won't cut it.

But the main reason you think what you think about this election is that are living in an echo chamber. You guys have become impossible to even talk politics with. You only listen to yourselves. Any opinion outside yours is shouted down. It's just a big circle-jerk with talk radio, the Internet, and the company you choose to keep.

Honestly? You guys are damaging our democracy as much as the Dem's socialist tendencies. Try listening. Try being a PART OF this society, instead of an angry outlier threatening to shoot people you disagree with. You know. Try behaving like a reasonable adult.

Re: Will talk of rigged elections end up hurting Trump

The election is over and his base will stand by him regardless but there is no chance he will attract anyone but that base...41% at very best!

I think this is where Trump will be hurt;





And what about his newest hotel venture?




Nobody Wants To Stay At Trump’s New DC Hotel




I think this is what Trump really fears....Brand damage

away from polls based solely on words they read on the internet. Those people probably shouldn't be voting anyways due to a lack of intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they believe in. In fact, those pu$$ies were probably going to vote for Clinton anyways, so staying away from the polls is a good thing.

Obviously you haven't been scared out of voting based on what I post here.

You don't get it kid. Elections aren't decided by people with an agenda. They are decided by people who get selected for juries because they have no bias or opinion. The kind that don't know anything about the candidates. The kind that get on the internet at the last minute and stumble into stupid.

I think Trumps biggest boost is going to come fom the "undecideds" in the fact that they will simply stay home instead of voting for Hillary.

Lot of "Dem lite" voters that can't stand the old scab.

I think Trumps biggest boost is going to come fom the "undecideds" in the fact that they will simply stay home instead of voting for Hillary.

Lot of "Dem lite" voters that can't stand the old scab.

Malfunctioning mic? Rigged presser?

When asked on NBC News how she saw the state of the race, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, replied that “We are behind."

I think Trumps biggest boost is going to come fom the "undecideds" in the fact that they will simply stay home instead of voting for Hillary.

Lot of "Dem lite" voters that can't stand the old scab.

Most polls are inherently dishonest just by the fact that they control the answer they want by asking the question to get the answer they want. If someone asks the question, "Is bacon good for you?" in Omaha, NE you're probably going to get 83% say yes but ask it in San Fransisco and 95% will say no. Depends on who is paying for the poll. They will always get the answer they want eventually. That's why I have a very dubious view of polls. I learned my lesson after believing the polls in 2012 election.

Polls should be abolished, period.

How else do you make sure you get your base out to vote? Saying you're up 20 will cause people to not take time off work to vote, to not spend $0.50 on a stamp to send in their ballot.

So you're saying the polls showing Hillary with a 12 point lead are good for Trump and bad for Hillary. Looks like the polls are rigged in Trump's favor.

I don't believe those polls showing here with a 12 point lead.

If by "rigged" we mean widespread voter fraud then yes, these elections are rigged.

Yes there is widespread voter fraud, as in geographically widespread. Almost every large city has some voter fraud and usually in favor of democrats. However, it has been investigated intensely by Republicans, yet these no credible evidence of large scale voter fraud such as would alter the outcome of anything but a razor thin election. It's just Trump's excuse if he loses bigly to Hillary.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims

If he says it, you know it's VBullchit.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

August 21, 2008

Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

By Thomas Lifson

The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.

A compliant media has averted its eyes so far. A timeline of Obama's career from George Washington University omits it. Why the McCain campaign has not raised more questions on the subject is a question beyond my pay grade. But there are signs it is on the case.

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

This was a big test for him, his chance to cut his teeth on bringing hope and change to the mostly minority inner city school children trapped in Chicago schools. And he flopped big time, squandering lots of money and the time of many public employees in the process.

Given Senator Obama's lack of any other posts as leader of an organization, someone unschooled in the ways of the American media might expect that for months reporters have been poring over the records of the project to get an idea of how it managed to fail so badly. Examining the track record of the guy who wants to lead the federal government would seem to be part of the campaign beat for media organizations.

But as a matter of fact, until recently, only a few bloggers were looking into the most important organized effort ever led by Barack Obama, prior to his successful campaigns for public office.

The Cover-up

Now, it appears a cover-up is underway, in order prevent journalists and researchers from getting access to the records of this charitable project housed in a taxpayer supported library. And there is a mystery:

The UIC Library says it is acting on behalf of the donor, whom it refuses to name.

It took Stanly Kurtz, of National Review Online to ask permission to see the files held by the publicly-funded University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). After initially agreeing, The Richard J. Daley Library withdrew permission. Kurtz writes:

"The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents."

It is highly unusual and legally questionable for a publicly-funded archive to deny access to records in its collection, particularly when they have a bearing on matters of intense public interest: the qualifications of a man seeking to be Commander in Chief.

But even if the university manages to stall release of the records until after the election, it is only drawing attention to the project. Already, the nation's mainstream media have taken notice (however imperfectly) of the University's unusual actions, albeit without exploring the subject in any depth yet.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign, it is going to be hard to keep this interest in Obama's Annenberg years contained, now that it has surfaced.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has put together enough data from public sources to seriously embarrass Obama over the closeness of his association with Ayers in the project, and to describe the wrong-headed and politicized approach taken by the project. Anyone can go to this page and look at the latter half of the very lengthy post to see the data uncovered by this intrepid researcher. At a minimum, it proves that Obama has seriously misled the public about his association with Ayers. And it documents and analyzes some of the complex left wing politics underlying the effort.

As the public begins to notice this outlines of the history of the CAC presented by Diamond, more questions are bound to be asked.

The First Cover-up

Diamond examined public documents, receiving cooperation from the Brown University Library, where the Annenberg Challenge Program national headuarters had been housed. Until, that is, Diamond's requests for further information fell on deaf ears following publication of a post highlighting a grant to one of Ayers' former revolutionary cohorts in the Weathermen. He writes:

"...while the representative from the university I originally corresponded with had been quite friendly and accommodating prior to my June 23 post, afterwards my additional requests for further information went unanswered. I did not pursue it at the time because I felt I had told a significant part of the story already. Thanks to the diligent work of Dr. Kurtz, however, we now know there is much more to know."

So the appearance of a cover-up actually began in June.

If Ayers were the sole point of interest in seeking the Annenberg Challenge files promised to Kurtz, all "132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material", then the Obama camp might claim it was merely guilt-by association and persuade at least some of its own partisans. But the fact that Obama was in charge of a massive expensive project makes it indisputably a matter of proper vetting to examine his track record at delivering on promises of hope and change.

The Obama camp has already noted that it does not control the archives at UIC. All well and good, though it would be nice for the candidate to plead with the university and the mystery donor to let the sun shine on his track record. After all, he is a new kind of politician.

But even if he doesn't, the Annenberg Challenge is slowly entering the national consciousness, and that's very bad news for Barack Obama.


Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.