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

[Padawanbater2]

View attachment 3747341
3,775,437/12,029,699 = 31.38%

27.93% according to Wikipedia

Still a moot point considering you don't think the DNC collusion could affect the outcome of the election, I think it could and neither of us can prove it

 

[Fogdog]

Stop presenting your baseless opinion as fact. It isn't. The fact that you're apparently unable to tell the difference says everything about your political gullibility on the finer points of voter disenfranchisement.

You're making the argument that you only get your civil rights when it's not really important.

Baaaaaa baaaa

Explain please what Hillary's team did to sway more than 31% of the Democratic party's voters.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How Trump supporters get to where they decide to vote for Trump would have to be answered by a Trump supporter. I don't understand their decision but I accept that they have a right to their say. I had mine and I lost. Just like what happened with Hillary's defeat of Bernie.

Again, I'm not asking you whether or not you think a Trump supporter thinks they're voting in their best interest. That answer is obvious, of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be voting for Trump

I'm asking you if you think Trump supporters are actually voting in their own best interest. Do you think Trump's tax plan will objectively benefit the average Trump supporter? Do you think Trump's foreign policy will objectively benefit the average Trump supporter? His illegal immigration policy? His opposition to NATO? His climate change policy?

Or do you think the average Trump supporter has fallen for his bullshit and are voting for him for reasons other than a Trump administration will be objectively better for them?

You can cut the charade, we both know the honest answer to those questions..

So my question to you is, why would Clinton supporters be any different? Are they just more politically savvy than Trump supporters?

Gee, that sure sounds pretty elitist to me..

If the election is by the same 31% margin in favor for Trump I will be amazed

Why would you be amazed?

 

[ttystikk]

I think a Trump presidency would be a disaster. How Trump supporters get to where they decide to vote for Trump would have to be answered by a Trump supporter. I don't understand their decision but I accept that they have a right to their say. I had mine and I lost. Just like what happened with Hillary's defeat of Bernie.

I will object if the Trump wins a close election and somebody pulls shenanigans. It is already happening in southern states where election boards are culling black voters from voter lists. But this would be points shaving. If the election is by the same 31% margin in favor for Trump I will be amazed but accept that my side lost.

But Chump!!!!!!
Baaaaaaa baaaa!!!!!!

It's okay to subvert democracy in order to save it!
Baaaaaaaa baaaaaa!

You're beginning to make me wonder if maybe it isn't smarter for me personally to simply join the elite and ignore the needs of the people instead of attempting to change the direction of the herd for the betterment of everyone.

Frankly I thought you were smarter than this.

 

[Fogdog]

27.93% according to Wikipedia

Still a moot point considering you don't think the DNC collusion could affect the outcome of the election, I think it could and neither of us can prove it

I showed you my numbers. The margin was 31% by the final count. Maybe the site got the numbers wrong but the arithmetic is correct. It is practically impossible to prove that something did not happen. And so, the onus isn't on me to disprove your claim the election WAS stolen by that amount or by 27.93%. In history, the kinds of things that cause votes to swing by huge margins in short periods of time are huge. A 911 type event can most certainly do that and is one of the risk factors that could easily move people to vote for Trump. I just can't see how some debate questions could do that. I do see how Hillary's long term presence and connection with black and latino vote is a main factor in their decision to vote for Hillary over Bernie. I don't think she deserved it but she was campaigning while Bernie was working in the Senate. This is how it is. People form opinions and they hold them until something happens to change it.

Again, I'm not asking you whether or not you think a Trump supporter thinks they're voting in their best interest. That answer is obvious, of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be voting for Trump

I'm asking you if you think Trump supporters are actually voting in their own best interest. Do you think Trump's tax plan will objectively benefit the average Trump supporter? Do you think Trump's foreign policy will objectively benefit the average Trump supporter? His illegal immigration policy? His opposition to NATO? His climate change policy?

Or do you think the average Trump supporter has fallen for his bullshit and are voting for him for reasons other than a Trump administration will be objectively better for them?

You can cut the charade, we both know the honest answer to those questions..

So my question to you is, why would Clinton supporters be any different?

Why would you be amazed?

One thing a person cannot do is know what somebody else is thinking. I'm pretty sure Trump voters think differently than I do. This is not a charade. The Trump voter formed their values and ways of understanding the world before Trump came on the scene. His message and way of campaigning is different in the extreme and has bowled over the Republican establishment. But Trump did not create these people. They were there for him to talk to and convince to vote for him. I don't know if Trump is a con either.

 

[Fogdog]

But Chump!!!!!!
Baaaaaaa baaaa!!!!!!

It's okay to subvert democracy in order to save it!
Baaaaaaaa baaaaaa!

You're beginning to make me wonder if maybe it isn't smarter for me personally to simply join the elite and ignore the needs of the people instead of attempting to change the direction of the herd for the betterment of everyone.

Frankly I thought you were smarter than this.

You are being elitist. You are already setting yourself up as a superior intellect and not one of us that you so derisively call a sheep. I'm just pointing out that your argument depends on that. Chomsky and I and the approximately 30 million people who will vote for Hillary are sheep. That's what you are saying.

 

[ttystikk]

Explain please what Hillary's team did to sway more than 31% of the Democratic party's voters.

Cheat.

 

[ttystikk]

You are being elitist. You are already setting yourself up as a superior intellect and not one of us that you so derisively call a sheep. I'm just pointing out that your argument depends on that. Chomsky and I and the approximately 30 million people who will vote for Hillary are sheep. That's what you are saying.

I'm fighting for the right of every citizen to have their votes actually count and you're calling ME an elitist?! Pretzel logic much?

Baaaaaa baaaaa!

 

[Padawanbater2]

I showed you my numbers. The margin was 31% by the final count. Maybe the site got the numbers wrong but the arithmetic is correct. It is practically impossible to prove that something did not happen. And so, the onus isn't on me to answer your claim the election WAS stolen by that amount or by 27.93%. In history, the kinds of things that cause votes to swing by huge margins in short periods of time are huge. A 911 type event can most certainly do that and is one of the risk factors that could easily move people to vote for Trump. I just can't see how some debate questions could do that. I do see how Hillary's long term presence and connection with black and latino vote is a main factor in their decision to vote for Hillary over Bernie. I don't think she deserved it but she was campaigning while Bernie was working in the Senate. This is how it is. People form opinions and they hold them until something happens to change it.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that I think the degree of the cheating is irrelevant

It's already been established I think the cheating matters, you think the degree to which the cheating actually affected the election matters. Even though I've pointed out to you multiple times that you and I both cannot conclusively determine the degree to which the cheating actually mattered.

I cannot be more clear about this than that, man. I think it matters, you don't because you don't think it affected the election. You have yet to show any amount of evidence that it did not affect the outcome of the election, therefore, your criticism that it doesn't matter unless it affected the election is a positive claim that you must provide evidence for to be considered legitimate. You're saying "It didn't" - conclusive statement, requiring evidence. I'm saying "It may have" - opinion, requiring no evidence as it's not a conclusive statement

One thing a person cannot do is know what somebody else is thinking. I'm pretty sure Trump voters think differently than I do. This is not a charade. The Trump voter formed their values and ways of understanding the world before Trump came on the scene. His message and way of campaigning is different in the extreme and has bowled over the Republican establishment. But Trump did not create these people. They were there for him to talk to and convince to vote for him. I don't know if Trump is a con either.

Objective reasoning is valuable for the very fact that it doesn't rely on subjective opinions

You know that Trump voters are not voting for Trump for reasons that would objectively benefit them. They're voting for Trump for reasons based on preconceived notions, racist underlying opinions and yes, media manipulation

For you to claim Clinton supporters are immune to manipulation by the media is elitist

 

[ttystikk]

Cheat.

...and if we let the cheaters win, then no one has incentive to do the right thing and our entire country slides off the cliff of moral hazard.

As if it hasn't already.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm fighting for the right of people to have their votes actually count and you're calling ME an elitist?! Pretzel logic much?

Baaaaaa baaaaa!

Tell me again how arguing on a pot board with somebody who pretty much agrees with you is fighting for the right of people?

Now you say their votes weren't even counted. Really? More than 3.5 million votes were miscounted somehow? I saw a white paper study from a Berkeley Professor (of some sort) make that claim based on statistical models. I found it interesting. It didn't prove anything other than this election is different from past ones. But his speculation was that across the country, voting machines without a paper record had been hacked. If somebody can show that happened, it would really blow this election up.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that I think the degree of the cheating is irrelevant

It's already been established I think the cheating matters, you think the degree to which the cheating actually affected the election matters. Even though I've pointed out to you multiple times that you and I both cannot conclusively determine the degree to which the cheating actually mattered.

I cannot be more clear about this than that, man. I think it matters, you don't because you don't think it affected the election. You have yet to show any amount of evidence that it did not affect the outcome of the election, therefore, your criticism that it doesn't matter unless it affected the election is a positive claim that you must provide evidence for to be considered legitimate. You're saying "It didn't" - conclusive statement, requiring proof. I'm saying "It may have" - opinion, requiring no evidence as it's not a conclusive statement

Objective reasoning is valuable for the very fact that it doesn't rely on subjective opinions

You know that Trump voters are not voting for Trump for reasons that would objectively benefit them. They're voting for Trump for reasons based on preconceived notions, racist underlying opinions and yes, media manipulation

For you to claim Clinton supporters are immune to manipulation by the media is elitist

So, any cheating is important to you, OK. Did you know that Bernie's campaign wasn't squeaky clean too? Maybe we should just start over again and exclude the cheaters this time.

I'm just saying that I require more proof than those e-mails to get me to give my vote to Trump. (have you read them, those were some really stupid fuckers) Not voting for anybody would be the same as voting for Trump if the election in my state is close. So, no, the standard is higher than "the DNC did wrong" for me to switch my choice.

 

[Fogdog]

For you to claim Clinton supporters are immune to manipulation by the media is elitist

I'm saying that people form opinions and they can change over time. Hillary had 25 years for African Americans and Hispanics and everybody else to get to know her and she most certainly was the candidate they were most comfortable with. Bernie showed up and had less than one year to get them to change their opinion of Hillary and he couldn't do it. What I think you are saying is that some media manipulations over less than a six month period prevented Bernie from doing so. I could agree if the margins were a few percent. But not by the amount that Hillary won by. It doesn't wash with me. And yes, this is my opinion and I accept that I can be wrong about that. As you can tell, the opinions of some people don't change very easily.

 

[ttystikk]

Tell me again how arguing on a pot board with somebody who pretty much agrees with you is fighting for the right of people?

Now you say their votes weren't even counted. Really? More than 3.5 million votes were miscounted somehow? I saw a white paper study from a Berkeley Professor (of some sort) make that claim based on statistical models. I found it interesting. It didn't prove anything other than this election is different from past ones. But his speculation was that across the country, voting machines without a paper record had been hacked. If somebody can show that happened, it would really blow this election up.

Maybe you should watch the short youtube clip of a programmer who worked on the voting machines and was being televised on C-Span, testifying before Congress that the voting machines were not only not tamper proof, they could be tampered with and leave no trace.

Don't even think about asking me to prove it happened. Human nature and the preponderance of evidence answers that well enough.

It's one more step in the breaking of the chains of accountability at all levels of government.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm saying that people form opinions and they can change over time. Hillary had 25 years for African Americans and Hispanics and everybody else to get to know her and she most certainly was the candidate they were most comfortable with. Bernie showed up and had less than one year to get them to change their opinion of Hillary and he couldn't do it. What I think you are saying is that some media manipulations over less than a six month period prevented Bernie from doing so. I could agree if the margins were a few percent. But not by the amount that Hillary won by. It doesn't wash with me. And yes, this is my opinion and I accept that I can be wrong about that. As you can tell, the opinions of some people don't change very easily.

This proves beyond doubt that you don't know shit about mass media and how it's used as propaganda. You've made lots of assertions about it that are simply false, undermining your conclusions.

Six media conglomerates control 90% of all news outlets in the country, media bias is repeatedly caught and called out throughput the past 14 months, only to continue- and somehow you want everyone to take the credibility of these Fortune 100 corporations for granted?

Baaaaaaa baaaa!

 

[Fogdog]

This proves beyond doubt that you don't know shit about mass media and how it's used as propaganda. You've made lots of assertions about it that are simply false, undermining your conclusions.

Six media conglomerates control 90% of all news outlets in the country, media bias is repeatedly caught and called out throughput the past 14 months, only to continue- and somehow you want everyone to take the credibility of these Fortune 100 corporations for granted?

Baaaaaaa baaaa!

I think I'm no better than the people who voted for Hillary. I wasn't swayed by the media and don't think they were either. Not by the margins Hillary won by. 1% or 2% are absolutely possible but not more than 31%. You have a lower standard of proof than I do, I guess. This makes you more likely to be influenced by the media.

 

[ttystikk]

I think I'm no better than the people who voted for Hillary. I wasn't swayed by the media and don't think they were either. Not by the margins Hillary won by. 1% or 2% are absolutely possible but not more than 31%. You have a lower standard of proof than I do, I guess. This makes you more likely to be influenced by the media.

You're still believing the liar's numbers.

Baaaaaaa baaaa!

 

[Fogdog]

You're still believing the liar's numbers.

Baaaaaaa baaaa!

Who's numbers? The voting count? Is that what you dispute? Are you saying that >3.5 million votes were miscast or stolen?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So, any cheating is important to you, OK. Did you know that Bernie's campaign wasn't squeaky clean too? Maybe we should just start over again and exclude the cheaters this time.

As I already told you, anybody that cheated, including Bernie Sanders, should be held accountable for subverting democracy

I don't care about this because I support Sanders. I care about this because I support democracy.

I'm just saying that I require more proof than those e-mails to get me to give my vote to Trump. (have you read them, those were some really stupid fuckers)

"to give my vote to Trump"

So that proves you do infact believe that any investigation into the DNCs behavior during the primary would hedge the vote for Trump. Weird.. I wonder why you would think that if her campaign didn't do anything wrong..

Not voting for anybody would be the same as voting for Trump if the election in my state is close. So, no, the standard is higher than "the DNC did wrong" for me to switch my choice.

Could have skipped all that and just admitted that beating Trump is more important to you than upholding democracy.. But OK

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who's numbers? The voting count? Is that what you dispute? Are you saying that >3.5 million votes were miscast or stolen?

You wouldn't accept it even if it were objectively proved, so who are you trying to kid?

Only the numbers by the media that has been proven to be manipulated by the DNC in support of the Clinton campaign are approved to you, anything else is all just conspiracy theories..

Speaking of right wing talking points..