There’s no “we” about it. The Democratic party no longer represents the people or unions. It represents corporate interests. Repubs do, too, but it’s incorrect to think the Dems still care about the average working person.
People didn’t want Bernie Sanders. I did. I voted for him twice. But I’m so fucking sick of this goofy-assed narrative that absolves the public of their civic fucking responsibility.
Nobody stole our vote. Nobody. His name was on the ticket. People didn’t vote for him.
100% this. I supported him, donated lots to his campaign, and the people just didn’t turn out to vote. The left are notorious for this. Every four years, they become online-only activists and yell at everyone to either not vote- or to throw away a vote via third-party.
And then, they vanish without a trace only to resurface later on as victims of their own decisions. And what’s funny about the whole thing is that they complain so much about “status quo,” but fail to realize they’re as status quo as it gets.
Yeah, but Clinton got some debate questions beforehand and private chatter clearly showed that the brass preferred her. This is literally unforgiveable because, just like braindead Trump supporters, I fell for the “it was rigged” despite the complete lack of evidence. And even worse in this case because Clinton crushed him!
An improper relationship and something certainly to be suspicious about. But you aren’t pointing to anything that did actually sway or control the election.
Silly me, I thought that the investigation of interim DNC chair Donna Brazile that showed that Clinton had undue influence over the DNC over a year before the primary, a superdelegate system that heavily favored Clinton, and the fact that the AP called the race the night before 6 states voted was pretty good evidence. I see that this single academic paper and the fact that no one wrote about email with the subject line, “Best way to rig the primaries for Clinton,” proves otherwise.
You cherry pick some facts, make vague claims to stuff, and don’t quantify at all how much they influenced the primary.
You’re the equivalent of the trump supporters who cry “but they moved some boxes under a table!” You have nothing but suspicion, and actual analysis of whether or not there is evidence of any kind of rigging revealed nothing, in both cases.
The facts suck when they don’t support what you want to be the truth, but it’s time to wake up and accept it.
I don’t know what to tell you dude; I don’t know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where Clinton didn’t take over the DNC’s finances before the election. I don’t have a time machine.
I can tell you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the primary was rigged, prominent Democrats like Harry Reid admitted it was an unfair primary, and when the DNC was sued by Sanders donors for fraud, they chose to argue that not that the primary was fair, but that the DNC was under no legal obligation to run a fair primary. I can also tell you that comparing real evidence of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to win her the nomination (for which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign) isn’t the same as Trump supporters wild fantasies about ballot stuffing, and anyone who would draw a false equivalence between the two is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of the basic facts surrounding the 2016 primary.
Of course you don’t because you’re spewing opinion, which you convinced yourself is fact, and I’m providing you with actual analysis, which contradicts what you want to be true. As I said, the facts suck when we don’t want them to be true
Listen to yourself, youre misrepresenting the opinion of Harry Reid to make your point. You want me to point to you the opinion of establishment democrats who agree it was fair…or do their opinions only count when they agree with you?
I literally just posted an analysis of the primary, that goes far deeper than winning the popular vote…and you’re saying I think it’s just the popular vote?
There’s no “we” about it. The Democratic party no longer represents the people or unions. It represents corporate interests. Repubs do, too, but it’s incorrect to think the Dems still care about the average working person.
Lol.
Man’s name was on the ticket.
People didn’t fucking vote for him.
Nobody stopped them. Nobody.
People didn’t want Bernie Sanders. I did. I voted for him twice. But I’m so fucking sick of this goofy-assed narrative that absolves the public of their civic fucking responsibility.
Nobody stole our vote. Nobody. His name was on the ticket. People didn’t vote for him.
100% this. I supported him, donated lots to his campaign, and the people just didn’t turn out to vote. The left are notorious for this. Every four years, they become online-only activists and yell at everyone to either not vote- or to throw away a vote via third-party.
And then, they vanish without a trace only to resurface later on as victims of their own decisions. And what’s funny about the whole thing is that they complain so much about “status quo,” but fail to realize they’re as status quo as it gets.
Mah boi about to get down voted to hell for speaking facts
I’m from Kentucky. His name was never on any ballot I had access to. Would have voted for him if I ever actually had the opportunity to do so.
Yeah, but Clinton got some debate questions beforehand and private chatter clearly showed that the brass preferred her. This is literally unforgiveable because, just like braindead Trump supporters, I fell for the “it was rigged” despite the complete lack of evidence. And even worse in this case because Clinton crushed him!
I think you’re missing the part where Clinton paid off the DNC’s debts and became it’s only financial lifeline, for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abdicated control of party to Clinton’s team long before she secured the nomination.
An improper relationship and something certainly to be suspicious about. But you aren’t pointing to anything that did actually sway or control the election.
I’m a proof is in the pudding guy, and it’s time to drop the whole narrative.
Silly me, I thought that the investigation of interim DNC chair Donna Brazile that showed that Clinton had undue influence over the DNC over a year before the primary, a superdelegate system that heavily favored Clinton, and the fact that the AP called the race the night before 6 states voted was pretty good evidence. I see that this single academic paper and the fact that no one wrote about email with the subject line, “Best way to rig the primaries for Clinton,” proves otherwise.
You cherry pick some facts, make vague claims to stuff, and don’t quantify at all how much they influenced the primary.
You’re the equivalent of the trump supporters who cry “but they moved some boxes under a table!” You have nothing but suspicion, and actual analysis of whether or not there is evidence of any kind of rigging revealed nothing, in both cases.
The facts suck when they don’t support what you want to be the truth, but it’s time to wake up and accept it.
I don’t know what to tell you dude; I don’t know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where Clinton didn’t take over the DNC’s finances before the election. I don’t have a time machine.
I can tell you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the primary was rigged, prominent Democrats like Harry Reid admitted it was an unfair primary, and when the DNC was sued by Sanders donors for fraud, they chose to argue that not that the primary was fair, but that the DNC was under no legal obligation to run a fair primary. I can also tell you that comparing real evidence of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to win her the nomination (for which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign) isn’t the same as Trump supporters wild fantasies about ballot stuffing, and anyone who would draw a false equivalence between the two is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of the basic facts surrounding the 2016 primary.
Of course you don’t because you’re spewing opinion, which you convinced yourself is fact, and I’m providing you with actual analysis, which contradicts what you want to be true. As I said, the facts suck when we don’t want them to be true
Listen to yourself, youre misrepresenting the opinion of Harry Reid to make your point. You want me to point to you the opinion of establishment democrats who agree it was fair…or do their opinions only count when they agree with you?
deleted by creator
I literally just posted an analysis of the primary, that goes far deeper than winning the popular vote…and you’re saying I think it’s just the popular vote?
DNC machinations were pretty one sided for Bernie. Mainstream dems were telling me “he’s not a real democrat so why should we vote for him”
he. was. the. better. person.
deleted by creator