Ringside seat wrote:
> The radical left-winger won the election in Austria. He supports
> EU membership and mass migration. I found it hard to believe the
> election in Austria was not rigged. It strains credulity to
> believe that Austrians would vote for a Green Party radical in the
> face of all the misery being inflicted on the Austrians.
> Martin Armstrong thinks the Scotland vote could have been rigged
> along with other elections in the EU.
>
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/unca ... democracy/
> Do you think it is possible that the vote was rigged? (This is a
> sincere question.)
If the Scotland vote had been rigged, it would have required
complicity by a lot of people, and whistleblowers would have appeared
by this time. So I consider it unlikely that the Scotland vote was
rigged.
The Austrian vote was decided by counting 700,000 postal votes. It's
possible that the count was rigged, but we'll have to wait and see if
anything comes out about that. But so far, there's no reason
to believe that the count was rigged.
Your basic premise is wrong. It doesn't strain credulity at all that
van der Bellen won. As I wrote in my article, Austrians are deeply
split about the migrant issue. You're on one side of the issue, but
your reference to "all the misery inflicted on the Austrians" is based
on hype by pro-Hofer political activists. As in other countries, most
Austrians, even those who favored Hofer, have welcomed and befriended
the migrants, and even invited them into their homes. People who
support someone like Hofer are usually not anti-migrant altogether,
and are willing to welcome refugees from a war zone, but want to see
the number of refugees limited in some way. That's a lot different
than what we hear from the pro-xenophobia activists.