Thanks AC,

I suppose if someone wrote a 'Democracy for Half-Wits', it would define it as a system where your candidate gets in regardless: your choice, therefore ...... But any basic textbook would amplify that somewhat, to suggest that democracy means that the candidate(s) who get the most votes/seats etc. wins, and that the candidate who doesn't get the most votes/seats etc. doesn't. So if someone votes for the candidate who gets fewer votes, well, their candidate doesn't get elected. And you suck it up until next time.

That seems to have been a hard lesson to learn over hundreds of years of trial and error.

Your boy Trumpf (and I use the word 'boy' intentionally) doesn't seem to understand that. As well, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between media having the right to their own views, and the power to push them, AND electoral fraud - memo to Donald: the media don't run the elections.

So of course, as a spoilt brat, he will take his bat and ball and kick over the stumps. Except of course, there not HIS bat and balls but the American people's. THEY choose, and they may not choose HIM. So where's your mother, with her hanky, when you need her ?

My wife was a reading specialist, so I listen to Drumpf wondering what his Reading Age might be: I waver between eight and fourteen. That's probably the age range at which most children begin to understand the (for Drumpf) complexities of what democracy means.

So the choice seems to be: more of the same until 2020, OR the unravelling of the US, as Drumpf entices the crazies out in the hills of Wyoming to defy the election result, as Drumpf sucks up to Putin, as he does something utterly lunatic in the Middle East, and as he trashes world trade agreements.

Like watching a series of very slow-motion truck crashes.

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,
It's not about being a sore losers at all, it's about winning fairly.
The voter fraud issues are genuine, don't fall for the media spin.
I posted a thread here myself on the topic of electoral fraud long before the debates began.

Have you seen the latest James O'Keefe videos exposing what the DNC have been doing?
They are damning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

The Pew research says 1 in 8 voter registrations are incorrect and stated 18million voters.
Plus 4million registered illegals and 2million dead voters on the books.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1

Hillary herself has questioned electoral outcomes before herself.
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/flashback-hillary-didnt-accept-the-results-15221824/

As for the media, the statistics have come out showing that of media campaign contributions, Hillary received 94% and Donald 6% - That's how much the media are on her side.

Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw

Everything she accuses others of she does herself.
She's very skilled at redirecting the issues she's guilty of at her opponents.
Doing so also nullifies the attack when others accuse her of it.
I'll give her credit for that - whatever you call it she's a master.

Here's that video about Michelle Obama.
Insider: Hillary Clinton To Step Down Next Week, Michelle Obama To Take her Place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuJDWWao_4

I think it will be his supporters that push the issue as much if not more than he will, if he loses.
And win or lose, America won't be the same after this election.

Also from what I understand the free trade agreements are just protectionism for global corporations.

Hi AC,

With the deepest respect possible, you're still confusing two separate issues:

* the media is entitled to favour one candidate over another. Drumpf has banned some of them, the New York Times and the Washington Post and maybe others, from interaction with his propaganda team. That's his right, but it's theirs to favour whoever they like. They don't favour Drumpf. Suck it up.

* the electoral process is an equal opportunity abuser: Drumpf's supporters are equally able to rort the system, especially now that Drumpf will instruct them how. What, you think they won't ?

The crucial issue is that Drumpf will incite his waning supporters, out there in Hicksville and the wild, wild hills of Wyoming, to ignore the election result, if he loses. Of course, not if he wins :) But he has raised the issue, of flouting the will of the people, of inciting his supporters to contemplate action if he loses. This is so much against US tradition, and that of any democratic system, that one is a bit gobsmacked: will he lead guerrillas out there in the Badlands against the elected government of their country ? He's opened up that question now.

By the way, it's ironic that he attacks migrants, and the children of migrants, since he is the child - the spoilt child - of one of them.

The US has thousands of universities, perhaps hundreds with proud reputations; between them, one would think, they employ many thousands of outstanding academics. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if some of those had worked their way into the election race, people who may well have had some measure of principles ? Okay, you're right, fat chance.

Cheers,

Joe

Hey everyone,
I'm not going to try to persuade anyone to support Trump or berate anyone for not doing so.
Doing so is a little bit stupid and pointless since none of us will vote in their election.
As Aussie's we're just onlookers; and no matter what happens we'll all be in it together.
I'm still going to share the things I hear from a Trump supporter point of view but I'm going to do so with more focus on how this is all going to play out rather than try to persuade people who I think they should support.

I'm not sure if many of you took the time to look at the things I've mentioned or linked to, and whether you truly understand all of the issues at play with this US election.

But because I have a good understanding of the issues from the Trump supporter point of view I probably have a better insight into how all of this might play out.

- So I'm going to try to contribute to the discussion more in that way.

Hey Loudmouth,

"With the deepest respect possible": - same to you.

I accept your first point, but the country is now openly engaged in facism; and whilst government being hand in hand with big business in the US is nothing new, it's is doing so openly in concert with proven electoral fraud to effect the outcome of a presidential election.

The whole thing spells tinpot dictatorship on an unprecedented level for all Americans to see.

I also accept your second point, that Republicans could be engaging in the same activities.
Firstly though, electoral fraud usually favours the incumbent; secondly I'm not sure it's realistic to think that Donald Trump has the kind of network of political/governmental/corporate connections in his pocket that the Clintons have been able amass so I doubt even if some is occurring on the GOP side it would be at the level to which is occurring within the Democratic Party .
Hillary effectively has all the corporations, globalists and every level of government behind her where Donald Trump is not establishment and his candidacy and nomination divided the GOP.

"The crucial issue is that Drumpf will incite his waning supporters...".

I think you've got it back to front, and your point here (respectfully) is merely the equivalent of Clinton campaign rhetoric. Media spin.
Donald Trump did not gain his support with a 'Pied Piper' act.
The dissatisfaction and concerns amongst voters that support him existed long before he put his hand up for the job.
In this way Donald Trump himself is only going to have limited control over what the people who support him do, depending on how this plays out.

[cont]

What we really have is a situation there are provisions for but no precedent for.
We're actually looking at a potential civil war event in the making.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is not so much about rights given to the people but a contract between government and the people that recognises those rights and therefore stipulates the limits of government.
The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms; but its actually a safeguard - the right to maintain a militia in the event of needing to overthrow a tyrannical government.
This right is a direct result of the Battle of Independence.

Another point is that the US is now is a defacto war with Russia.

So what we have is a Presidential candidate who has (potentially) came to power by having big business in her pocket and openly engaging in electoral fraud, who's going to choose her supreme court judges; tear up the constitution, take the free speech, take the guns, open the borders and go to war with Russia; as well as drafting the people into fighting that war.

If ever there was a case for the citizens to use that provision to 'legitimately' overthrow a tyrannical government who seeks to tear up the constitution and openly transform their democratic republic into a corporate fascist dictatorship now would be the time.
There will not be another chance after she's taken the guns.

You make the point that if Donald loses he will be a sore loser; but it must also be said that if Donald wins Hillary will surely blame Russia.

Here's a link to the radio show I watch.
http://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/category/michael-rivero/
There's so much important info in the first 4 to 5 minutes today (October 20, Hour 1) that I couldn't possibly relate it all.
I think fellow forum members here could gain a great deal of insight by checking out the first few minutes of his latest broadcast.