Okay. I think we can agree to put those two things aside then since they really are about things being creepy rather than rigged.
Favorable coverage doesn't mean rigged however. Voters still decided the race. No one ever claimed elections don't have money and interests trying to sway voters one direction or another. That's almost inherent to what an election is. The decision still is with each individual to place the vote. Favored coverage doesn't equal rigged.
Yes, some states decide to have open, mixed or closed primaries and other rules regarding how their state party primary/caucus will be conducted. This isn't a new thing this election and doesn't indicate something being rigged. It's just rules were in place that helped one nominee over another. The end result was a candidate that had more support from democrats had an advantage in a democrat party primary. Again, this is just rules and systems for party nominations. Nothing about rigging here, especially when the rules were in place in prior elections. It wasn't some type of blindside in 2016.
Define "the stack" for me. Is it the comment above this one about primary rules in closed states? If so, it makes little sense those rules were put in place long ago all because one day they would help Clinton beat Bernie. You're blending cause and effect together. What the rules are doesn't prove why the rules are.
Again, this is just a preference thing with a two party over multiparty system. Has nothing to do with election being rigged or not.
It doesn't strengthen your claim because rigging an election means fraud. Points about advertising or slandering/ignoring a candidate in media doesn't defend a claim. The individual still places their vote under their own free will. They just usually decide on one of the two parties because of the system we have in place out of rationality.
So to be clear here, I think we need to understand:
1. There are different systems for elections and just because you have a preference for one or another, that doesn't make one inherently rigged. Especially the common two or multiparty systems we see in most developed countries.
2. Media supporting/criticizing candidates is not rigging an election.
Not understanding this is going to continue discussion of points that can't defend your claim
Its not even a matter of favorable coverage or criticism heavy coverage, its a matter of third party candidates being black balled altogether. Its the media who chooses not to talk about these third party candidates, not the people. The "Who to vote for decision" is made my MSM outlets and unfortunately a large amount of the population listens to whatever they say and accepts it.
In my mind, MSM is one of the three heads of "The Stack". All MSM outlets are owned by 6 huge corporations. These corporations have a lot to gain and a lot to lose depending on how the elections turn out. I can't believe that these 6 wouldn't do everything in their power to "Minimalize" the risk on losing a lot on an election. So they help rig the nominations and the election for their own benefit. Between MSM, Big Banks and the DNC they make up the 3 heads of "The Stack".
Hillary has 6 of the 10 biggest banks as campaign donors. These banks help her fund her massive campaign. (Neither Bernie, Johnson, Stein or Trump have accepted money from the big banks in this election as far as I've seen/read.)
MSM has given Hillary more coverage positive and negative than any other candidate. Again, i'm not arguing about favorable coverage, i'm arguing that Hillary has purchased herself more coverage by quantity than any other candidate in the election. Candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have received an extremely minimal amount of any kind of coverage, largely due to them not having anywhere near the same campaign funds as the other two. Is this a Cashocracy or a Democracy? Seems like the money piece plays a role in rigging the elections, in that sense. People don't choose the candidates, money thrusts them into our vision and most never try to squint and peer around to see the other candidates with much less exposure.
What is stopping MSM from thrusting third party candidates onto the main stage from the beginning other than cash?
The DNC sabotaging Bernie's chances is the final nail in the coffin. Less coverage, less votes. Less money, less votes. No inner-party support, less votes...Bernie was never a real candidate, Hillary had the nomination locked up before it even started. Now she has an easy road to the white house running against Trump as long as she doesn't go to jail, which of course she won't.
-My definition-
Rigged: Purposeful and decieptful directing towards a specified outcome with no regard for the integrity or objectivity of the process. Sounds quite a bit like fraud to me.
Also doesn't help that only like 1/3 Americans will vote come election day.
