For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders claiming elections are bought.

> We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1]

(He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.)

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...

He's making a different claim, though. That million/billionaires can donate to politicians and influence the legislation they write. Or that they can donate to SuperPACs, which will air ads that change people's minds about what candidate to support. That seems pretty true.

Trump is suggesting that actual votes are being miscounted deliberately. That the entire voting system of the US cannot be trusted to provide the result the public give it. That's a very different charge, a very dangerous one, and utterly unproven.

I certainly heard them, at the very least, there was railing against Bernie supporters, not Bernie himself.

His railing against the system regards economics and yes the foray of money into politics. It is in a similar category of statements but is very different than claiming the voting machines are rigged. Yes, some Bernie supporters alleged there was outright voting manipulation, but the Sanders campaign did not directly allege that.

And the system is rigged. It's rigged towards the two main parties. It's rigged towards re-electing the same people. Smaller parties get no representation, and have no chance in any meaningful election. The influence of the Democrats and Republicans over the election system is enormous.

But between the Dems and the Reps? Those two are fairly balanced. There is some rigging in some states through gerrymandering and making it harder for some groups to vote, but it's on a very different scale than the rigging towards the two-party establishment.

That's because Bernie Sanders is not in fact claiming that the election is rigged. In fact: he's been a reliable support of Clinton since the primaries ended.

And therefore, he's a good guy now? lol.

Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]:

> Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

[0] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Just curious why everyone loves throwing around the term "fascist" so much. Why not use more precise language to describe what you dislike about a candidate? The term seems ambiguous, and no one seems to have a clear definition of what it is. At most, there seems to be some related factors. For example, my image of Fascists is that they heavily promote war and expanding the empire. But, in contrast, the "fascist" candidate in this election wants to reduce our military footprint, and have other countries defend themselves.

Maybe the term has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, but I don't think so. The particular fascistic ideas Drumpf's movement expresses are:

  * Nationalism
  * A notion of racial or ethnic purity (see for example, the 2nd-generation American judge who wasn't *really* American because of his Mexican heritage)
  * Attraction to 'strong' leadership
  * The concept of a natural aristocracy (eg. based on race or national identity)
  * A theory of historical decline, often combined with a promise of some great destiny (make America great *again*)
  * High praise for cultural traditions of the in-group (divided on racial, ethnic or national lines). This can make it easy to confuse facism with conservatism, but for non-facist conservatives, ethnic divisiveness isn't a desirable goal.
  * Localist perspective on all issues (no tendency towards globalism or universalism). Only the interest of the in-group are considered.
  * Strong masculine/feminine divide. Particular emphasis on masculine qualities for the state and its leaders.

I've seen some journalists using the word 'Authoritarian' to try do work-around the overuse of 'Facist', but that's actually less precise accurate: authoritarianism doesn't entail the kinds of ethnic purity ideology which is critical to fascism (and Drumpf).

This is hardly a mystery: Because language is powerful and the vast majority of people are too stupid and lazy to do anything but absorb the positive/negative valence of the term being used. The redefinition and stretching of terms is hardly a new thing. Just because Stalin was famous for Orwellian use of language doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at pretty much every level of politics even in relatively well functioning political systems.

For normal candidates, I'd agree with you, but Trump absolutely nails a rather objective and detailed definition of fascism. See my comment elsewhere in this thread for sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12729018

Did you even bother to read the article? You say that you think the term is ambiguous and this article is here exactly for the purpose of elucidating the idea of Fascism as it appears in it's obvious and not so obvious forms.

You say people are quick to throw around the term, yet you're equally quick to disregard those who see some very obvious similarities between Trump's style of campaigning and the rise of various fascist leaders.

These clues are not subtle in Trump's case. It's mind boggling to think that people do not see them. It's like watching Blue's Clues with the audience of children yelling "THE CLUE IS RIGHT THERE!" and Steve is completely oblivious for the whole episode. In the end Blue dies because Steve is ignorant. Blue is our Democracy. You are Steve.

This is a wonderful and frightening summary of what makes fascism so superficially attractive and easy to slip into. Another point relevant to the current debate:

For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.

> Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism

Would you also apply this to Al Gore's complains back in 2000? Why or why not?

Awesome find. Sharing this.

You're welcome!

You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456

http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo...

https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che...

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/

(and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)

If I may offer one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175380

> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged".

A) That's been done before (Gore, 2000).

B) There's evidence of voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

I hope no one intimidates voters, though. That's not right no matter who does it or why.

Because armies of Democrats, including pundits, elected officials, party functionaries, and the action Presidential nominees, never claimed 2000 or 2004 were rigged in any way.

Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.

No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days.

http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...

Thiel reminds me of Zobrist from Dan Brown's novel and now a nice, The Inferno

> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened

As we all should, since many/most electronic voting machines don't even have a paper trail. How is it that so many standard liberal positions from five or ten years ago have somehow now become ultra conservative?

Surely you realize how disingenuous this statement is? Trump's mantra of "the media is conspiring against me, the polls are all rigged, the election will be stolen from under us" is a far cry from anything we've seen in previous years. This has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.

> This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.

Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.

No, he's not. Not in the way he's saying it. Every single poll is showing him losing at this point. Many political leaders, including those in his own party, have dismissed his claims as nonsense. As he always does whenever he's embarrassed in public, he's simply laying blame for his failure on something — anything! — outside his own incompetence. Unfortunately, his core supporters lap it right up.

Saying the election is rigged with zero evidence is "saying it for the wrong reasons"

No, he absolutely is not. He is acting as a giant crybaby, and he will continue doing so after the election, with disastrous consequences.

He's absolutely not right.

It's fine to question things, but just saying "it's in doubt" with no argument is just Trump style FUD.

His statements might have some level of validity if he was criticising the use of electronic voting machines. He is not. He is instead suggesting that his supporters go to "other areas" and "see what's going on over there" - if his objection was electronic voting machines then that request would make no sense.