United States of Corporate America

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's bullshit, go back and look. Your ego took complete control over that post/situation. You tried to post yourself above MBB in a position of authority.

Why? Honestly ask yourself that. Why did you choose to do that? For ego. Fuck ego, man. You're better than that, I know you are.
Click to expand...
You already said that the claim of primary being rigged can't be proven Facts are verifiable. You say that because of the rigged primary the whole election process was invalid. Your claim is not based on a fact. And I think you agreed on this.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Not buying it.

Too much evidence to the contrary and too many people with the means and motive involved.
Click to expand...
Sorry man, but I'm not aware of factual evidence to support the claim that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. We've gone around and around about the DNC putting the fix on the election and I thought we got to the point where we could agree that this is not provable and so, cannot be used as fact. What else is there?

I wouldn't dispute this claim if Bernie had lost by 2 or 3 percent. I'm saying that a real case hasn't been made that 3 or 4 million people or 12% of the Democratic voting base were stolen away from Bernie during the primary season. So, what facts do you know?
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
how bout we at least admit when a strongly held position is an opinion.

This whole discussion about election rigging is not based on fact. Wasn't for Trump and wasn't for Clinton. Maybe we can start with that.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you can tell we are using that to mean things that factually happened, if you don't like the word, fine .Lets pick a different word to use.

we all agree unethical things took place in both parties right? The head of the DNC did resign right? The GOP did try resist and replace Trump in spite of the people's will, right?

These shenanigans and others tainted and effected the elections, which is is tantamount to rigging because the natural course of things has been altered ........and even if in the end the fact is everything would have turned out just the same, the effort and will was there.

these were far from elections of shining integrity right? we can agree there so far? We already have a problem then. they are suppose to be.

both parties did try to hurt their own candidate, yes? that's a fact I hope you agree with. if not I've already posted about the DNC here. As for Trump. wouldn't you agree his party didn't want him and did try to find ways to circumvent him?

I concede Justin's point Trump having to go against resistance from his own party. They did look to replace him in spite of the voter's will.
That's taint........it failed........but it still happened.

Then we can look at all the interference and muckery the right has done, like impeding the voting process deliberately to gerrymandering, we see further taint.

I hope you aren't going to be reactionary and ask for proof that Republican's have done that. we are trying to reason here, not have a pissing contest.<-------just saying.

Right there is enough to cast doubt on the integrity of the elections. so if you don't like the word "rigged" because it can also mean someone actually stuffed the ballot boxes or similiar. Fine lets use another word.

Pick a word that describes the above and we'll use it.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Sorry man, but I'm not aware of factual evidence to support the claim that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. We've gone around and around about the DNC putting the fix on the election and I thought we got to the point where we could agree that this is not provable and so, cannot be used as fact. What else is there?

I wouldn't dispute this claim if Bernie had lost by 2 or 3 percent. I'm saying that a real case hasn't been made that 3 or 4 million people or 12% of the Democratic voting base were stolen away from Bernie during the primary season. So, what facts do you know?
Click to expand...
If a tree falls in the woods and you're not there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Yes it does: FACT

But you didn't see it fall, you didn't hear the crash..how do you know?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
Oh come on, you can tell we are using that to mean things that factually happened, if you don't like the word, fine .Lets pick a different word to use.

we all agree unethical things took place in both parties right? The head of the DNC did resign right? The GOP did try resist and replace Trump in spite of the people's will, right?

These shenanigans and others tainted and effected the elections, which is is tantamount to rigging because the natural course of things has been altered ........and even if in the end the fact is everything would have turned out just the same, the effort and will was there.

these were far from elections of shining integrity right? we can agree there so far? We already have a problem then. they are suppose to be.

both parties did try to hurt their own candidate, yes? that's a fact I hope you agree with. if not I've already posted about the DNC here. As for Trump. wouldn't you agree his party didn't want him and did try to find ways to circumvent him?

I concede Justin's point Trump having to go against resistance from his own party. They did look to replace him in spite of the voter's will.
That's taint........it failed........but it still happened.

Then we can look at all the interference and muckery the right has done, like impeding the voting process deliberately to gerrymandering, we see further taint.

I hope you aren't going to be reactionary and ask for proof that Republican's have done that. we are trying to reason here, not have a pissing contest.<-------just saying.

Right there is enough to cast doubt on the integrity of the elections. so if you don't like the word "rigged" because it can also mean someone actually stuffed the ballot boxes or similiar. Fine lets use another word.

Pick a word that describes the above and we'll use it.
Click to expand...
The thing with Sanders was, the media was involved too, to the point of directing our narrative..who we will hear about; talk about. They were complicent in stifling Sanders as a presidential candidate..they wouldn't even talk about him..a presidential candidate in a two horse primary? C'mon. They leveraged contest reporting/time zone in order to influence other contest still open that day or immediately following the next day. Exit polling showed massive support for him early on; they stopped exit polling. That is a little different than Trump analogy in where establishment was so turned off but with no electors in a republican primary 'we the people' still had their candidate. Not so much wth the dems. Sanders was pulling in record crowds greater than Obama, while Hillary's crowd was hotel lobby and high school gymnasium.

Oh what a web we weave..7M stayed home and now a presidential candidate with the worst approval rating (as an elect) in US history voted in with less votes than that loser Romney.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the course of history WAS indeed changed with the DNC/Media collusion.

Therefore, I disagree with your theory.
 
Last edited:
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
The thing with Sanders was, the media was involved too to the point of directing our narrative..who we will hear about; talk about. They were complicent in stifling Sanders as a presidential candidate..they wouldn't even talk about him..a presidential candidate in a two horse primary? C'mon. They leveraged contest reporting/time zone in order to influence other contest still open that day or immediately following the next day. Exit polling showed massive support for him early on; they stopped exit polling. That is a little different than Trump analogy in where establishment was so turned off but with no electors in a republican primary 'we the people' still had their candidate. Not so much wth the dems. Sanders was pulling in record crowds greater than Obama, while Hillary's crowd was hotel lobby and high school gymnasium.

Oh what a web we weave..7M stayed home and now a presidential candidate with the worst approval rating (as an elect) in US history voted in with less votes than that loser Romney.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the course of history WAS indeed changed with the DNC/Media collusion.

Therefore, I disagree with your theory.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where we disagree. I have no theory. Perhaps you read me wrong. I make no bones about the fact that democracy was subverted and that the corporate media colluded in doing it.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Sorry man, but I'm not aware of factual evidence to support the claim that the nomination was stolen from Bernie. We've gone around and around about the DNC putting the fix on the election and I thought we got to the point where we could agree that this is not provable and so, cannot be used as fact. What else is there?

I wouldn't dispute this claim if Bernie had lost by 2 or 3 percent. I'm saying that a real case hasn't been made that 3 or 4 million people or 12% of the Democratic voting base were stolen away from Bernie during the primary season. So, what facts do you know?
Click to expand...
Shouldn't we ALL care that they TRIED to influence the outcome? To what degree they were successful is irrelevant. The DNC and members of the Clinton campaign were in cahoots, and that FACT alone is what we should be concerned with.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
I'm not sure where we disagree. I have no theory. Perhaps you read me wrong. I make no bones about the fact that democracy was subverted and that the corporate media colluded in doing it.
Click to expand...
Your theory is what happened would of still happened regardless using Trump as an example which is completely different than what happened with Sanders.

We'll of course never know the true extent but suffice it to say the candidate herself and those around her knew enough..saw the numbers, defeat was again, imminent.

She changed the course of history..but in the end, your theory does have merit.

Hillary Clinton was NEVER DESTINED to be President.
 
Last edited:
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Your theory is what happened would of still happened regardless using Trump as an example which is completely different than what happened with Sanders.

We'll of course never know the true extent but suffice it to say the candidate herself and those around her knew enough..saw the numbers, defeat was again, imminent.

She changed the course of history..but in the end, your theory does have merit.

Hillary Clinton was NEVER DESTINED to be President.
Click to expand...
that is not my theory. you are misunderstanding what i wrote.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:

If Sanders couldn't overcome a rigged primary, you don't imagine he could have won the general? Where is the logic in that? Had he won a fair primary, there's no reason to believe he couldn't have won the general election. He beat Clinton in a few pivotal states that she lost to Trump, and most of her wins in the primary were won by Trump in the general.
Click to expand...
Just to be accurate, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are the 'few pivotal states' that lost the EC.

In Pennsylvania with the most EC votes of the 3, Hillary won the primary 58-42. Then lost the state by what, 68,000?

So those 3 states, that lost by a combined total of around 100K, lost the election.

So those 100K votes had more value that the 2.9+ million she won by in the remaining 47 states. So a vote in Pa. (or Mich. or Wisc.) was worth more than a vote in Cali.?

The winners won't accept Russian hacking because it delegitimizes their shitty win.
They directly state that 3 million Cali voters were illegal immigrants not eligible to vote with zero evidence (other than fake news websites). So it overcomes their popular vote deficit, in the minds of the warped.

They full heartedly support infighting on the left, adding to it as often as they can.

The opposition is clever. They get people to vote against their own interests with false promises no one could keep, and laugh at them from on high.

And one last thing. I voted for Bernie in the primary. But suppose he had won the nomination and somehow won the presidency.
How would he get any more done than Obama in polarized Washington? They would do nothing but pass the ball around like the end of a college basketball game, just running out the clock until his term ended.

Washington was disfunctional the last 6 years. And now the crazies have taken over. Better start looking to the future immediately. They did in 2008, where are they today?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Shouldn't we ALL care that they TRIED to influence the outcome? To what degree they were successful is irrelevant. The DNC and members of the Clinton campaign were in cahoots, and that FACT alone is what we should be concerned with.
Click to expand...
Absolutely I agree with you about the need to clean up the primary. It's been evolving since the turn of the last century and primaries weren't even decisive for the nomination until 1972. There is a long history of back room dealing that has to be flushed out of the system. It was unethical what happened between members of the DNC and some operatives in the Clinton campaign.

Do you think it's possible or even desirable to have the kind of system that monitors all people involved in the election process for ethics? I'm not asking about legal matters, just ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top