EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

Padawanbater2 said:
I've never claimed "Clinton stole the election". The only claim I've made is that the DNC colluded with the media and ran an undemocratic primary in favor of Clinton which they have admitted to and which is verifiably true

I'm also claiming the degree to which the collusion may or may not have affected the results of the primary are irrelevant to the fact that collusion was taking place

You are claiming you know it had no effect, where is your evidence of that?

Really? Please, quote where I have ever claimed that

You're strawmanning my actual position because you know yours is indefensible

-The DNC colluded with members of different media organizations: FACT
-DWS and other DNC officials admitted to it - FACT
-The DNC ran an undemocratic primary in favor of Clinton - FACT

And one half of you is still trying to deny they did anything wrong while the other half is claiming what they did was just politics as usual, so which is it?
Click to expand...
Ok, so, then I interpreted what you were saying wrongly and I stand corrected. I am glad to be corrected in this. I'm glad to hear that you think Hillary won the election by a popular vote that was not rigged in any way. Because claiming she stole the election by vote rigging would just plain be stupid thing to say.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You're in the camp that says what the DNC did is just politics as usual, so I'd like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you think what the DNC did was wrong?
2. If not, why did DWS release an apology and why were top DNC staffers fired over it?
3. If not, why don't you think it was wrong?
Click to expand...
1. Yes. It was wrong.


Pad, if Hillary were not running against a candidate that I consider to be crazy and dangerous i would care more and allow it to factor into my choice. But she is not. In my opinion this is a case of what happens when one party shits the ideological bed. The other party usually suffers from the lack of competition. I think this is where the DNC is. It is a coin toss on which collapses first.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog said:
I'm glad to hear that you think Hillary won the election by a popular vote that was not rigged in any way.
Click to expand...
The election was rigged in favor of Clinton

The DNC colluding with the media is rigging the election
Unclebaldrick said:
1. Yes. It was wrong.

Pad, if Hillary were not running against a candidate that I consider to be crazy and dangerous i would care more and allow it to factor into my choice. But she is not. In my opinion this is a case of what happens when one party shits the ideological bed. The other party usually suffers from the lack of competition. I think this is where the DNC is. It is a coin toss on which collapses first.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your honesty

So what happens down the line if we have an opposite situation taking place? Where a republican candidate is poised to take the nomination because special interests decided a republican would be better for business? Won't republicans be able to use the exact same justification then? That they think the democratic candidate is too crazy to lead the country, even if they win legitimately? That even if they have to cheat to win, that's what's best for the country? Does it not make you feel really uncomfortable that your political enemies could potentially be in charge of electing the president, regardless of your vote, and you would have no valid recourse since you approve of it now, when it's a democrat who's most likely to be elected?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
The election was rigged in favor of Clinton

The DNC colluding with the media is rigging the election

I appreciate your honesty

So what happens down the line if we have an opposite situation taking place? Where a republican candidate is poised to take the nomination because special interests decided a republican would be better for business? Won't republicans be able to use the exact same justification then? That they think the democratic candidate is too crazy to lead the country, even if they win legitimately? That even if they have to cheat to win, that's what's best for the country? Does it not make you feel really uncomfortable that your political enemies could potentially be in charge of electing the president, regardless of your vote, and you would have no valid recourse since you approve of it now, when it's a democrat who's most likely to be elected?
Click to expand...
I think the term "special interests" is a bit misleading. It sounded like amateur shit to me.

I am failing to get your point. And it is 3 minutes until tacos.

 
Padawanbater2 said:
The election was rigged in favor of Clinton

The DNC colluding with the media is rigging the election

I appreciate your honesty

So what happens down the line if we have an opposite situation taking place? Where a republican candidate is poised to take the nomination because special interests decided a republican would be better for business? Won't republicans be able to use the exact same justification then? That they think the democratic candidate is too crazy to lead the country, even if they win legitimately? That even if they have to cheat to win, that's what's best for the country? Does it not make you feel really uncomfortable that your political enemies could potentially be in charge of electing the president, regardless of your vote, and you would have no valid recourse since you approve of it now, when it's a democrat who's most likely to be elected?
Click to expand...
In your opinion, if the DNC had not colluded with the media, would Bernie have won the nomination?
 
Unclebaldrick said:
I think the term "special interests" is a bit misleading. It sounded like amateur shit to me.

I am failing to get your point. And it is 3 minutes until tacos.

Click to expand...
The people who finance their campaigns

What if those people decide down the line that a republican will be better for their interests and we end up with someone as president like George W. Bush? Given the state of the republican party at the moment, probably someone much worse?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
The election was rigged in favor of Clinton

The DNC colluding with the media is rigging the election

I appreciate your honesty

So what happens down the line if we have an opposite situation taking place? Where a republican candidate is poised to take the nomination because special interests decided a republican would be better for business? Won't republicans be able to use the exact same justification then? That they think the democratic candidate is too crazy to lead the country, even if they win legitimately? That even if they have to cheat to win, that's what's best for the country? Does it not make you feel really uncomfortable that your political enemies could potentially be in charge of electing the president, regardless of your vote, and you would have no valid recourse since you approve of it now, when it's a democrat who's most likely to be elected?
Click to expand...
OK, I have eaten dinner and am at a full keyboard. Fucking tablet uses this predictive writing thing that is 100% batshit so I had to turn it off. Now I have to actually hit the right keys so it kinda sucks.


Anyway, again, you have some perspectives that I don't share. "no valid recourse since you approve of it now"? Uh, no. I do not approve of it. But it was also not a surprise and nothing new.

Well, actually, there is one thing new about it. The leak comes from a very obvious email hack that I believe was done by a foreign power. Another "international actor" then used the leak to further his political aims. So when you talk about a foreign power influencing our elections it seems to me that you miss the obvious. Was the RNC hacked? Was it just as bad insofar as favoring one candidate over the others? We won't know. I for one think that overblowing the impact of the little gnomes at the DNC favoring Hillary is exactly what the hackers want. Fuck the party. People vote on the candidates. Hillary won - even though it sucks.

I keep reading that last paragraph and I just don't get it. There is no place in my logic that justifies cheating against a bad candidate. If the Republican's had thrown a dart they would have had a 75% chance of beating her. But they didn't. They voted in and are currently supporting a candidate that is 100% unsuited for the job. So I am going to do what I can to see that he does not get elected. I am not going to use my vote to "punish" Hillary for being herself and end up with a total sociopath that ruins our government and impoverishes the country. Maybe that means I will lack the ideological purity that you seem to think you have. I can live with that.

I am still shocked that anybody ever thought the DNC was being unbiased - so why should I allow the candidate whose foreign allies broke the law and violated the nation's political process to gain from it.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2 said:
You're in the camp that says what the DNC did is just politics as usual, so I'd like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you think what the DNC did was wrong?
2. If not, why did DWS release an apology and why were top DNC staffers fired over it?
3. If not, why don't you think it was wrong?
Click to expand...

Fuck. Back in high school ethics class. The class our country cut from the curriculum, apparently.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You're in the camp that says what the DNC did is just politics as usual, so I'd like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you think what the DNC did was wrong?
2. If not, why did DWS release an apology and why were top DNC staffers fired over it?
3. If not, why don't you think it was wrong?
Click to expand...
You should totally vote for trump bro
 
Aeroknow said:
I can't fucking wait for my hero to finally be potus.
View attachment 3760196
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
e13-549.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top