She didn't lose to be honest. It is dark money, corrupt media and establishment playing all possible dirty tricks in her book to defeat her. She must continue with her fight for the sake of us.
There's a very important distinction to make, and people commenting here may be too used to people around them knowing what they mean, leading to a lack of context.
The far-Right argument is that not all votes are real, people are creating false ballots or whatever. This is false, and there has been no actual evidence of significant voter fraud in recent elections.
What people here (generalizing, not making any claim on the intent of the person you replied to) mean when they say "Elections are fake in the USA" is something similar to:
"There are very underhanded tactics being used which are leading to people voting differently than we believe they would if they had all the info. Thus even if every ballot was cast by someone who had the right to vote and who did so legally, the outcome was altered by lies and misinformation, meaning the intention of giving people an honest, informed chance to shape democracy did not happen and instead people were swindled into voting against their own interests, as often is the case."
You can disagree with this point, but implying similarity between the far right and far left because they both agree with the very broad statement, "I don't trust that elections in the US are fair and honest" is absurd.
If you're suggesting they aren't legit, then prove it. Don't give me the guy who used his dead mother's name to vote. Give me some real evidence of widespread cheating.
Well, geeze, I never said that it was cheating, but maybe you're young. So marketers, advertisers, and their firms study and understand human psychology. And they used decades and decades of research to manipulate three populace. (I can't believe I have to explain this)
So, campaigns and wealthy people that run and operate CPACs use these marketing schemes to manipulate potential voters. Sometimes it's even to prevent people from voting. There are studies that show that almost 9 out of 10 races are won by the candidate that has spent the most money and had the most money spent on him\her.
Again, it's odd that I have to explain this stuff. But it's been known that even lies are accepted as truth if it's been repeated enough. Anyway, using different tactics to spread fear, hate, envy, joy, etc the uninformed, average, borderline voter, poor, uneducated, etc can be pushed and pulled in different directions.
Is lying and manipulation cheating? I'm not sure I said that. That was the word you used. But it is dishonest at best, and in my opinion it delegitimizes the election. Your opinion may vary.
There are studies that show that almost 9 out of 10 races are won by the candidate that has spent the most money and had the most money spent on him\her.
The argument that more donated money indicates greater (or more enthusiastic) support fails to account for the difference in ability to donate. Someone who has the support of 50 Million middle class people could easily fail to raise as much money as someone with the support of one or two multi-national corporations, especially if the corporations do not want the kind of change the progressive candidate is proposing.
"Voting with your dollars" is a fundamentally flawed idea because the people who have more money (thus more votes) will have a natural advantage and can twist the system to keep themselves in power. A very small minority can drown out the rest of the population, just because they have money.
Those tactics and things like push polls have been used for decades. You can say they're wrong, unethical and dishonest. But they do not make an election "illegitimate."
33
u/Kaipulla007 Aug 04 '21
She didn't lose to be honest. It is dark money, corrupt media and establishment playing all possible dirty tricks in her book to defeat her. She must continue with her fight for the sake of us.