RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "There is no doubt that our election system is rigged. If you're not running as a Democrat or Republican, the system is stacked against you. You're right, Donald, the media is part of our rigged elections. They are giving you and Hillary Clinton all the coverage and just about ignoring every other candidate for president."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)


The System Is Rigged, but in Your Favor, Donald

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

19 October 16

 

here is no doubt that our election system is rigged. If you’re not running as a Democrat or Republican, the system is stacked against you. You’re right, Donald, the media is part of our rigged elections. They are giving you and Hillary Clinton all the coverage and just about ignoring every other candidate for president. So Donald, you should stop whining. You blew it even with an electoral system set up to give you an advantage.

Donald, it wasn’t the media or the rigged system we have in the United States that offended a majority of American voters. The system didn’t call Mexicans rapists. The system didn’t say a judge couldn’t be impartial because he was a Latino. The system didn’t say it just starts kissing women because they let the rich do it. The system didn’t say it could just grab a woman’s genitals. The system didn’t say John McCain was not a hero because he was captured and was a prisoner of war. The system didn’t offend Gold Star Mothers.

Donald, Donald, Donald…. You have the nomination of the Republican Party. Your political convention was covered gavel to gavel by the media. Hundreds of reporters were denied access to your nomination because of the huge demand. There was no demand for credentials at the Green Party or Libertarian conventions.

Donald, you were guaranteed a spot in our nation’s nationally televised debates. You didn’t need to get to 15% in the polls; the Republican nomination guarantees 30% for you. Most political experts would say it guarantees 40% for you, but I believe that number is dropping.

Donald, while you have a guaranteed spot on the ballot in all 50 states, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson had to waste organizational resources in most states to just qualify to get on the ballot. You have run a campaign that has relied on free media and the spin from your rallies. I wonder how many state ballots you could have qualified for if you had had to rely on your campaign organization to get the signatures needed in each state.

One has to wonder how far you could have gotten if you’d run as a third party candidate. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC wouldn’t have had all their cameras pointed at an empty podium when you told the American people you did us a great service when you forced President Obama to show us his birth certificate.

Okay, so the Republican Party machine is not 100% behind you anymore. Whose fault is that? Candidates you called “lying Ted” and “little Marco” ended up endorsing you. Even the guy you said wasn’t a hero because he got caught endorsed you. You blew it. They hate Hillary Clinton and to keep her from becoming president they were willing to overlook everything you did. You couldn’t hold on for a few months and hope that more voters would vote against Hillary Clinton than against you. That is what this election has become, a race to the bottom.

We have a two party system that is rigged in favor of the Democrats and Republicans. We do need political reform in this country. That reform needs to level the playing field for candidates that are not Republican or Democrat. We don’t need to change the system to make it fairer for a billionaire who can self-fund and win the Republican party nomination. So once again Donald, you’re right, the system is rigged. But Donald, it’s rigged in your favor, and you still blew it. Now if you really want to un-rig the system in the future, encourage your supporters to support reforming the electoral system for future elections.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+13 # Pikewich 2016-10-19 17:52
Scott: You said "We do need political reform in this country. That reform needs to level the playing field for candidates that are not Republican or Democrat. We don’t need to change the system to make it fairer for a billionaire who can self-fund and win the Republican party nomination."

That won't happen until we vote for it.
 
 
+6 # indian weaver 2016-10-20 06:40
Don't be silly. We The People will never have a chance to vote on such an issue, because the system is rigged from top to bottom against us.
 
 
+4 # GoGreen! 2016-10-20 10:43
Yes, we all know the system rigged from top to bottom in favor of the top 1% in terms of wealth. But that should not cause us to vote for which ever of these two bad candidates we think is not quite as bad as the other.

I'm voting for Jill Stein and Ajama Baraka and hope you will too. Look them up at jill2016.org
 
 
+26 # RMDC 2016-10-19 18:30
It is true that Trump was given enormous advantages by the media. It is fair to say the media created him, as Marc Ash recently wrote, and now it is tearing him down. But this is totally different in quality from the treatment the media is giving Hillary. Trump is always treated as a bizarre outsider who is sort of a TV reality star (which he is). Hillary is treated as the heir apparent to Obama.

Election rigging is much broader than this author pretends. It has to do with vote counting, voting machine tampering, polling place staffing, and really lots and lots of more tactics. Read Greg Palast for good discussion of election rigging.

The two party system is broken, but Trump is a beneficiary of that part of what's broken.
 
 
-1 # HowardMH 2016-10-20 10:57
Yes, Yes, Yes there is so much voter fraud.

There are 31 cases out of a Billion Votes of voter fraud, and most of them were dead people who were alive when they submitted their ABSONTEE Vote, BUT then died before election day. Talk about doing your constitutional duty up to the last minute of your life - now that is a true patriot. I will let you geniuses figure out what percentage that comes out to. You know how to do that right divide a Billion into 31, or do it your way and divide 31 into a Billion if that makes you idiots feel any better.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-20 20:28
RMDC was talking about election fraud/"rigging" . You are the only one discussing voter fraud. You are replying to him while ignoring his points ("vote counting, voting machine tampering, polling place staffing," etc). And please tell us how many "billions" of adult USians there are that enabled a "Billion Votes"? You seem to be unintentionally pointing out hundreds of millions of cases of election fraud that the rest of us had not heard of yet.
 
 
0 # HowardMH 2016-10-21 08:36
The Billion number was all of those that have voted starting in 2000.
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-21 20:22
Thank you for clarifying that. So there have been 31 cases of voter fraud in 16 years. Anyone have an estimate of how many cases of election fraud in that time, or in 2016 alone?
 
 
-1 # pegasus4508 2016-10-20 20:57
Election rigging is also accomplished by purging voter registration rolls of blacks and Hispanics. But that does not affect you, does it?
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-21 20:24
If it affects the outcome, it affects us all.
 
 
+27 # Radscal 2016-10-19 19:12
Apparently the memo went out. Starting yesterday, the "progressive alternative media" has been running pieces on how Trump is correct that the election is rigged, but in his favor.

Today, Ed Schultz asked a Clinton Operative why the Wikileaks email dump hasn't hurt HRC. He of course went on and on about how bad Trump is and once again went into the HRC/DNC claim that "Russia did it to rig the election for Trump."

And when Ed called him on the FACT that no one has provided any actual evidence that Russia is behind these leaks/hacks, he threatened to walk off and never come back. Yeah, that's journalistic integrity and honest debate. /s

None of them will admit it's because the corporate media is not covering the substance of these documents, but go on endlessly about the latest nasty claims about Drumpf.

And none will discuss the overwhelming evidence of massive election fraud in the Democratic primaries.
 
 
-10 # Activista 2016-10-19 21:05
Radscal, Please educate me on, tell details/facts (NOT conspiracy rumors):

1 overwhelming evidence of massive election fraud in the Democratic primaries.

2 corporate media is not covering the substance of these (stolen?)documents

the system is not perfect - money rules (but USA is the "culture" of greed/money) - just listen to Trump - $billion - NOT ideas.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-10-20 01:14
This report details many aspects of the fraud in the 2016 Democratic Primary:

http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf

This site has been archiving evidence since early in the Primary. Here you can see paper ballots with Sanders votes whited out, paper ballot tabulating machines that do not recognize (count) Sanders votes, poll workers being deliberately taught to give the wrong ballots to Sanders voters, etc. etc. etc.

http://www.election-justice-https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com

Trump sucks, but near as I and the election researchers can tell, he didn't steal the Republican nomination. In fact, in the 12 out of 26 States that ran exit polls, the Republican votes exactly matched the exit polls, but HRC "'won" by rates FAR outside of the margin of error.
 
 
+4 # RMDC 2016-10-20 07:59
Thanks for posting this again. It is a very important archive. People have such short memories. In the debate last night, Chris Wallace said something about 240 year tradition of peaceful transition of power. He seems to have forgotten Florida and the storm of controversy and lawsuits over the rigged elections of 2000.

The Clinton machine is particularly corrupt and ruthless. Rove was corrupt but the Clinton machine surpasses him. I doubt that anyone will attempt to hold them to account. Sanders and Warren seem to have signed on to whatever Hillary's team tells them to do. The demo party under the Clintons cannot be reformed.

Our only hope is that the Greens can get 15% of the vote on Nov. 8th so they will automatically be on all state ballots and in the debates in 2020. That's a very tall order. Now we have to look out for suppression or cancellation of Green party votes.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-20 10:32
Yep. The HRC campaign is straight out of the Karl Rove handbook.

In fact, Redacted Tonight’s John F. Donnell was doing an interview with Rove at the second debate, and DNC Chair Donna Brazille interrupted to protect Rove!

“I don’t think he should be answering any questions that might in any way impede our election,” Brazile said.

“So the head of the DNC is also Karl Rove’s publicist?” O’Donnell asked.

“Oh just for the day, just for now,” Brazile responded. We're all friends, she said.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-20 13:24
Here's the link that includes Donna Brazille protecting Karl Rove:

https://www.rt.com/usa/361506-redacted-tonight-presidential-debate/
 
 
-4 # Activista 2016-10-20 20:41
www.facebook.com/notes/election-justice-usa/democracy-lost-a-report-on-the-fatally-flawed-2016-democratic-primaries/923891901070837
the link provided did not work -
http://www.election-justice-usa.org is good analytical site - but conclusion is the discrapencies would NOT make Sanders the winner. My concluson is the same as of Water Williams below:
Walter Williams @Anitha This report raises some very serious concerns that should not be ignored. Anyone found to be guilty of influencing an election in one way or the other should be prosecuted to the fullest. What I have been saying and this article does not address is the question, after taking into account all of the irregularities would Bernie have won the Democratic primaries. I have seen nothing that says he would have won. He does not over come the 3 million vote advantage after allowing for all alleged fraud. He does not win the number of states won after granting him all states where he has protested the outcome. Also Bernie does not over come the huge 400 super delegates advantage Hillary had from almost fay number one. So the fact still stands you can argue the final score but you can not argue the win or the loss"
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-20 22:00
Yes, Bernie would almost assuredly have won. The Election Justice study found that he would have had about 200 more delegates than HRC. That's counting the "super delegates."

And the evidence is that Sanders got millions more votes than HRC, even after millions of voters were scrubbed off the voter rolls or their ballots tossed out.

Clearly you didn't really peruse the evidence I provided. Again.
 
 
-3 # Activista 2016-10-21 14:13
Quoting Radscal:
Yes, Bernie would almost assuredly have won. The Election Justice study found that he would have had about 200 more delegates than HRC. That's counting the "super delegates."

And the evidence is that Sanders got millions more votes than HRC, even after millions of voters were scrubbed off the voter rolls or their ballots tossed out.

Clearly you didn't really peruse the evidence I provided. Again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Candidate Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders
Home state New York Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722[a][1] 13,206,428[a][1]
Percentage 55.2%[a] 43.1%[a]
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-10-21 17:13
Are you really so obtuse that you don't realize we're saying the votes as tabulated do not represent the votes actually cast?

Never mind. Someone who refuses to even look at evidence that might conflict with one's precious little prejudices is necessarily obtuse.
 
 
-2 # Activista 2016-10-21 20:36
Never mind. Someone who refuses to even look at evidence that might conflict with one's precious little prejudices/cons piracy is necessarily obtuse.
 
 
+5 # Anonymot 2016-10-20 06:44
Activa - Just listen to the CIA candidate. She has one idea - women. It's valid, but she never talks any more about the wars she and her handlers intend to start to regime change Iran, Russia, & China. This is not a one-string world.
 
 
+3 # GoGreen! 2016-10-20 10:57
I live in California. During the primary Presidential election Bernie had massive crowds that filled a foot ball stadium in Los Angeles, a rally in Oakland that filled city hall plaza and a huge mob of people filled Crissy Field in San Francisco.

Hillary had some gathering in the private residences of her major donors. She never had enough people to fill a basketball court.

Another fact of the rigged system is that all voters who changed their registration, or registered for the first time, in the last THREE MONTHS before the election were given provisional ballots which were not counted.

Three months before the election people had hardly heard about the Saunder's campaign. A huge number of registered Green Party members changed their registration to Democrat, these were not counted but it did push down the level of Green party members that their ballot status is threatened.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-10-20 13:28
I've been a registered Democrat in CA since the 1980s. A couple months before our Primary - having read about people being scrubbed off the voter rolls in other states - I checked and my registration had been changed so I couldn't vote for Sanders.

Luckily, I caught it in time and got it fixed.

I live in a VERY conservative county now, but we use paper ballots and Bernie got 60% of the votes.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-10-20 16:49
"None of them will admit it's because the corporate media is not covering the substance of these documents, but go on endlessly about the latest nasty claims about Drumpf."

What's even more upsetting is that RSN isn't covering the substance of the documents either.
 
 
-2 # Scott Galindez 2016-10-20 18:54
I have been reading the documents and havent found much that was new or surprising...
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-10-20 22:02
What do you make of the paper ballots with Sanders votes whited out?

What do you make of the paper ballot tabulating machine that didn't recognize votes for Sanders?

What do you make of what Mayor de Blasio referred to as "targeted" scrubbing of 126,000 registered Democrats in just one county of NYC?
 
 
+27 # stevee19304@gmail.com 2016-10-19 21:38
Nobody is voting for Trump. They are voting against Clinton.
Nobody is voting for Clinton. They are voting against Trump.
We need Instant Runoff Voting so we can vote for who we want to win instead of against who we want to lose.
 
 
+1 # Anonymot 2016-10-20 06:48
If the 2 Deep State parties just put up junk candidates , oh, yes, that's where we are.
 
 
+3 # RMDC 2016-10-20 07:38
stevee -- yes, you are right. Both candidates are not trusted or liked by many people at all. Too bad there is no way to just cancel the process and start all over. A caretaker could be named to serve as president for 6 months so that Obama could retire and go somewhere.
 
 
+20 # fsboos 2016-10-19 21:59
Thanks for this excellent article, Scott. Trump is a madman, but all the hitherto progressive journalists--fr om Noam Chomsky to Matt Taibbi to Robert Reich to Frank Rich to Naomi Klein--are literally begging us daily and repeatedly to vote for Mrs. Clinton as their drumbeat theme.
But the point is that NOW is the only time to talk of practical alternatives to our two party duopoly/closed debates/elector al college/unsafe voting procedures system. As soon as the elections are over, no one will think of these matters again for four years, when--with luck, if our world is intact--we will again confront two of the least desired available candidates in a world of scandal and policy evasions. Since neither the Republicans nor Democrats will willingly police themselves nor share power, it's time to think of some ways to introduce instant run-off voting, open debates, verifiable primary elections, and other desperately needed changes.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-10-19 22:17
I see. These people became "hitherto" progressives as soon as they started saying left-leaning voters should cast their ballots for Clinton because Trump is worse rather than writing in Bernie Sanders or voting for Jill Stein.

Reality check: the ONE thing we could do to open the political system is abandon the electoral college like the eighteenth-cent ury fossil it is, and go to a straight popular vote. Nothing else that would have a chance of being enacted would make much difference.

As for closed debates, there has to be SOME threshold or there wouldn't be room in the debate hall for the candidates, let alone an audience. Fifteen percent in the polls shouldn't be that hard a hurdle for someone who thinks he or she has a real shot at being elected. The real complaint many here seem to have is that THEIR PARTICULAR FAVORITES didn't get seated.
 
 
+14 # EternalTruth 2016-10-19 22:52
"Fifteen percent in the polls shouldn't be that hard a hurdle for someone who thinks he or she has a real shot at being elected. The real complaint many here seem to have is that THEIR PARTICULAR FAVORITES didn't get seated."

Really? So in order to get into the debates, they have to poll at 15%, before anyone even gets a chance to find out who they are and what they stand for? If Bernie had run as an independent, very few people would've known who he was, and there would've been a virtual media blackout except snide remarks discrediting him. The reason Stein polls so low is only because virtually no one knows who she is. If people voted blindly based on policy positions instead of name recognition, I bet she'd win, or at least be close. But when there's no chance when the MSM has a vested interest in not letting people know about her. So this 15% barrier ensures that only Dems and Repubs can get in.
 
 
+12 # Ted 2016-10-19 23:37
Yep, 15 percent on polls conducted by only certain corporate media outlets handpicked by the dem/repub partnership running the debates, a majority of those polls DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE 3rd PARTY CANDIDATES NAMES ON THE POLL.
 
 
+3 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-20 20:52
Yeah. The first poll I was subjected to was very simple. I said I was voting for Stein, and they responded that I was undecided.
 
 
-6 # pegasus4508 2016-10-20 21:04
What does Jill Stein do with the money she gets for EVERY presidential election. Shouldn't she use that money so people can "Get to know her?" Or is that beyond her capacity? She has been running for the last several elections AND gets public funding money. IF she used that money correctly, people would know her and understand that her pie in the sky ideas sound great. But WHO will work with her if she ever got elected. WHO?
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-10-20 22:07
Stein's campaign spent most of their donations just getting ballot access.

The Greens haven't gotten enough money to run TV ads in major markets, and Stein has gotten very little coverage in news, and when she does, it's generally dismissive.

Of course, the corporatists in both parties don't want to pass any of the progressive legislation that she and Sanders propose. The best hope is that an honest, peace/justice/e nvironmental President could use the "bully pulpit" to build public demand for Congress to actually let us have some of the stuff almost all of us want.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-21 20:32
...And even if no one would work with her, she would at least, unlike her predecessors, and the current major party candidates, not be charging ahead in self-destructiv e directions.
 
 
+9 # crispy 2016-10-19 23:50
15% in the polls IS hard to get as even Nader was never able to get there. The first 4-5 candidates should be invited (out of 300 running) so areal debate could occur.
Abolish the electoral college is a no-brainer (is it in the constitution?.)
Also we should move to a federal count: the candidate getting the most popular vote (nationwide) gets elected; after all the US leans democratic party.
 
 
+11 # crispy 2016-10-19 23:53
ericlips " there wouldn't be room in the debate hall for the candidates, let alone an audience. " common!
HOW did they make room for the 17 primary republican candidates??
ever watched debates in other countries?
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-10-20 10:39
A reasonable threshold to be in the Presidential Debates is being on enough ballots to win the election. This year, that would be four candidates, which is hardly an unreasonable number.
 
 
+5 # GoGreen! 2016-10-20 11:04
If a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win, that candidate should be in the debates. Our present system only allows two candidates to be in the debates. One Republican and one Democrat. That needs to be changed. The debates should return to being presented by the League of Women Voters as it was in the past.
 
 
+3 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-20 11:28
Eric, the threshold could be pretty easy to determine. Any FEC recognized party with enough states to win the Electoral Collage--which I agree should actually go away. But that would have put Stein and Johnson in the national debates. The only polls that matter in an election are properly conducted exit polls.
 
 
-3 # pegasus4508 2016-10-20 21:02
Truth is quite hated now on RSN. Maybe I should stop my donation and let the haters take over.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-10-21 19:10
"Waaaaaa-waaaaa aa! I'm going to stop donating! I'm the only one who knows the truth and the other kids won't comply."

This is pretty lame.

PS Aren't you going to call us sexist too?
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-21 20:34
What truth is that?
 
 
+9 # indian weaver 2016-10-20 06:42
We had open debates when The League of Women Voters was in charge of them. Recently, an enlightening article was published about how the corrupt system got rid of fair debates, never to return now.
 
 
0 # Philothustra 2016-10-19 23:07
Yes, really,"Etennal truth". You have to garner one eighth to qualify for a final runoff, which is a lot more open than in 90% of the other "democracies."

Time for the left to accept that a fourth, maybe a third, of the American people are utter retrograde yahoos -- maybe they have always been. The "Booboisie"

Realpolitik, mein freunden. Its time for the left to quite fantasizing about what would happen if the mainstream media (MSM) did not control television.
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-10-19 23:43
3rd,4th and 5th party candidates are included in the first few presidential debates in France.I honestly don't think they use a% for cut-off but it could not be 15% or the royalist party candidate would never have made it.
presidents are elected with a 2-turn system
Only after the 1st turn are the debates between the 2 who got most of the votes which have been the same 2 party candidates for years. It may change next year if the extreme right-wing candidate gets 2nd place.
 
 
+12 # crispy 2016-10-19 23:34
Some claim Donald got about $2 million a week worth of free advertising from mainstream media.
"We don’t need to change the system to make it fairer for a billionaire who can self-fund and win the Republican party nomination."
We need to make it ILLEGAL to contribute your own money to buy elections in my opinion. Or we could set the limit to where it is at for us citizens to contribute to a candidate ($2700 which is way more than the average American can contribute).
seems to me we need strictly public financed elections with a serious cap on spending. Free TV and radio time should be given in exchange for the privilege of using the public airways (equal time at always the same time(s) of day so as not to confuse electors)
REVOLUTIONARY?
 
 
+6 # Patriot 2016-10-20 00:12
“The liberty of the Press is called the Palladium of Freedom, which means, in these days, the liberty of being deceived, swindled, and humbugged by the Press and paying hugely for the deception.” - Mark Twain, 1870

Marc Ash wrote today, "You have your own news source, beholden to you. What does it take to preserve it? Precious little." And he's right.

Many commentators lately--me, too--have groused about RSN's political coverage & various technical glitches, but there's still no place like RSN for the breadth of subjects & viewpoints it provides us.

So, please, join us contributors (I'm proud to be one) & add something to the budget fund won't you? You don't have to bankrupt yourself, just toss in $1 or $3 or $5 or even $10. RSN has come up short this year in 'way too many months--doubtle ss because all of us are pouring every spare dollar into political & environmental organizations. But RSN can't continue to pay its bills & its staff indefinitely on less than a full budget--any more than you could meet your monthly financial obligations on less than a full paycheck.

So, please, toss in a little something for all the news you find here so effortlessly. our help really, really is needed, even modest help.

...Of course, if you happen to have a spare $50 or $100, I'm sure RSN would be delighted to have that, too.... If you absolutely can't afford to put something in the hat, then pass the word about the news that's available right here on RSN!

Thanks!
 
 
+2 # draypoker 2016-10-20 07:40
A better designed system would filter out rogues like Trump (a bit like the early Mussolini) much earlier in the process.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-10-21 09:40
Quoting draypoker:
A better designed system would filter out rogues like Trump (a bit like the early Mussolini) much earlier in the process.

- don't be surprised if - in 4 years - repugs have a beefed-up super-delegate system
 
 
-1 # pernsey 2016-10-21 13:01
This rigged system crap is just a deflection for Trump to take our focus off of his predatory behavior. Any conspiracies just sound ridiculous, he is covering his butt so he can say its someone elses fault, you know how he hates taking responsibility. ..for anything. The old Trump blame and shame tactic.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN