If you think the election is RIGGED, you probably live in a RIGGED (Gerrymandered) congressional district. How's that sitting with you?

Hello again, IT:

Call me old fashioned, but I think elections are where VOTERS select their representative, NOT where the representative SELECTS his voters.. 

excon

PS>  By the way, just WHO are the seats safe from???  The VOTERS???

Yes that is why I do not like it. The districts are chosen to ensure a republican or democrat majority. As my rural friend has pointed out to me in this state there is another problem where the urban districts have fewer people so this means rural votes count for less and that translates into republican voters have less influence. I do not know if that is same in other states.

@ITPro --- Your comment above is interesting.

You complain about the status quo...yet you cannot bring yourself to admit that the status quo is the result of (broadly speaking) GOP/conservative actions (gerrymandering, voter suppression, few limits on campaign spending, etc.). So, instead, you whine about the extremely tiny and minimially influential "problem" of voter fraud.

I guess STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ-bashing is more important to you than actually solving the problem...;-D...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

I am a liberal I am just voting republican this time.

Hello again, IT:

Yeah..  I've heard that story before.  But, liberals wouldn't say THIS about liberals:

"In short they are simple people and they can not understand these more complicated matters and they cannot even understand the idea of a deduction for taxes but they know trump said a bad word and women don't like him so that is easy for their simple heads to understand."

excon
This post was edited by excon at October 24, 2016 9:40 AM MDT

Hillary supporters are not liberals. Is there a word for those who want a goverment run by corruption? They are that.

@ITpro -- Right, as a "liberal", you're going to vote for someone who represents just about everything which is the antithesis of liberalism instead of someone who is corrupt and "not liberal enough"

Good luck with that....;-D...

If you are voting Republican you are voting for TRUMP who is the worst example of anything from any party.  Even his own party hates his guts.  HOW VERY LIBERAL of you.  

Liberals supposedly exercise caution to the point that they choose carefully among issues that matter no matter who is running.   That I could get behind.  To say you are Liberal and are voting Republican in this election (and many before this one)  is equal to saying you are a Liberal and you are voting for a mindless Nazi.    However, I doubt if Trump even understands that concept either. 

This would be the first time in my life I have not voted democrat.
Should I vote for someone who cheated and stole the nomination from a man who would be 50 points ahead right now?
Should I vote for someone who has tainted the party so badly? A lying criminal who has refused to step aside?
A candidate who is taking millions and millions from banks and from terrible countries that support ISIS. A candidate who is funded by the richest?
A c andidate who even the green party can not endorse over trump because she is most likely to start new wars. A candidate who uses claims about russian hackers the way bush used claims about iraq wmds? A candidate who actually has bush support? A candidate who apologizes to the banks for having to appear to regulate them just to make the dumb public feel like something is done. A candidate who has had agents stir up violence at the campaign of her opponent. A candidate who mishandles classified information, deletes emails under subpoena, and lies and tries to bribe the FBI.

How is voting for that liberal? Hillary is an embarrassment to liberals.
I am not republican or socialist but a republican or socialist who is not absolute corrupt lying slave to bannks and rich is preferred to "liberal" who is.  What will be left of the party if hillary is to win?  It will show that the party can be taken by the worst anti-liberal criminal by nothing except backroom deals and that the people will still vote the same. I can not support that.  That is betraying real liberals. If hillary is to win the party will be nothing but the corrupt party of clinton and friends. There will be no more democracy. There will never be another Obama to win against a clinton or clinton placement.

@ITPro -- There is a phrase to describe your behavior. It's called "letting the Perfect be the enemy of the Good"

I AGREE with you about many of HRC's flaws. I would far prefer that someone like Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, or Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic nominee.

But, in comparison to The Donald, HRC is still the "good" in this election.

Now, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe you live in a state (as I do) that's so strongly Democratic-leaning that your vote won't affect anything. If that's true, go ahead and vote for Trump. I don't care. I think you're being silly, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

But if you do live in a battleground state where the outcome is somewhat in doubt, please rethink your position. Do you REALLY want a man whose primarily represents (alt-) Right Wing Authoritarian F***tards to gain office because HRC isn't liberal enough for you?

Isn't that something akin to the Vietnam War strategy of destroying a village to save it?

If destroying one village is the one way to have hope of saving all villages in the future than that is what you do.
Let trump be trump for 4 years and let the democrat party clean its self and become respectable again.
If she is allowed to win the democrat party is nothing and everyone will know a criminal can steal the nomiation through backroom deals and the people have no say and they deserve no say because they will vote for anything with the (D).

This post was edited by excon at October 25, 2016 10:04 AM MDT

I do not watch any of those channels. I get much of my news from youtube and check if the story is true. No one still watches TV news except the generation that is retiring now.

Do you have ANY evidence that HRC's defeat would lead to the Come To Jesus reckoning you envision for the Democratic Party?  Is there any historical precedent for it (Hint: no)?

How does defeating one Corrupt Corporatist Kleptocrat by voting for an even-worse Corrput Corporatist Kleptocrat "teach the Democratic Party a lesson?"

If you want to throw your vote away, vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders. At least that way your message is clear ("I want more liberal candidates").

But history suggests that "punishing" Democrats by voting for more right-wing candidates simply encourages Democrats to be more right-wing (cf. Clinton, Bill -- whose major "accomplishments" were GATT, NAFTA, deregulation of the financial industry, deregulation/oligopalization of the communications industry, and "an end to welfare as we know it").

If Hillary is allowed to steal the nomination and win the presidency then why should we ever have primaries again? You think it will be fair next time when we reward the thief this time? The primaries this time existed only to prevent us from deciding who would have the nomination. That is not what I want for the future. Look at the republicans who got the candidate they wanted even when the establishment did not agree while we get hillary and never really had any voice.

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, few limits on campaign spending, etc. are GOP Conservative actions? HaaaHaHa . . . you're sooo funny!

Gerrymandering predates the GOP by about, what, half a century? (New flash, it was HEAVILY used in the post antebellum south by those southern Democrats to keep the newly emancipated voters in check. Which leads to the use of "voter suppression" (things like the threat of a hemp necktie) to keep those same voters from going to  the polls. That, and things like poll taxes. And you can still find that kind of Democrat activity ala the voting in Philadelphia where some "black panthers" intimidated citizens on their way to the polls.

But you can't blame limitless spending on the Democrats. It was Joe Kennedy that said that he only want to buy enough votes for his son JFK the win the election, not to buy him a landslide.

@Salty Herbert -- For some reason, RAWFs like you keep pointing out the BAD EBIL DEMOCRAP actions...which are decades (or centuries) old and refuse to face up to the far more recent actions of the GOP.

The GOP disenfranchises THOUSANDS of voters in North Carolina = No big deal.

One guy stands at a poll in Philadelphia and holds the door open for people = Because he's a Nig...er, "black panther", that's voter intimidation.

You display similar double-standards across the spectrum of this issue.

You really are a comedian.

You keep TRYING to point out how bad and evil you think conservatives have been, without any actual facts to back your lies. All the while while you overtly deny the real facts about the liberal Demoncrat's. It hasn't been that long ago when official Demoncrat government-sanctioned institutional racism was the order of the day; still would be if it hadn't been for a stand-off between MLK and LBJ.

You can spout as much rhetoric as you like but I judge based on actions and results, not a big mouth. The liberal agenda is repeatedly a miserable, dismal failure when measured using that yardstick. The latest is this whole mandatory health insurance scam that's denying many working people actual access to affordable healthcare. It was one lie, after another lie, after another lie; con artistry at its finest. If that's not evil I don't know what is. But a leopard does NOT change its spots so why should we expect anything else from the libs?.