Trump is a fucking moron

Fogdog said:
I don't know what you mean by cheating.
Click to expand...
DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, repeatedly leaked debate questions to Clinton campaign
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
What's more important: Democracy or winning?
Of course you do. Clinton took control of the DNC, the "democratic" organization responsible for electing the Democratic candidate to run for president, before the Democratic primary. One candidate had total control over party operations and funding, the other didn't. That is cheating. Everyone knows it, and there's nothing controversial about admitting it, the vast majority of Americans who follow American politics know that Clinton cheated during the primary.
Fogdog said:
What I will also say is from everything I've gathered reading and listening about post election analysis, Clinton did not take unfair advantage during the campaign. By that measure, I say that Clinton did not cheat. She most clearly had the opportunity and did not take advantage of her position.
Click to expand...
Then explain how utilizing complete control over the democratic organization responsible for nominating the Democratic candidate for president is not cheating. If Donald Trump bought and controlled the RNC during the Republican primary, then was nominated to run against Clinton and won, you would be screaming about corruption. But Clinton does it, and it's fine by you, because you supported her. That's called political hackery. You're inconsistent when it comes to people and hypocritical on issues when the politicians you support do unsavory things.
Fogdog said:
You made me laugh at you by yet again by showing irrelevant opinion polling data. People said they loved Bernie during the 2016 election and he still lost by three million votes.
Click to expand...
...because the Clinton campaign cheated. It's very weird to hold up the number of votes in an unfair election as evidence of legitimate victory.. You understand that, right? "WE WON BY MILLIONS OF VOTES!!!" "Right.. but the election was unfair, so none of those numbers actually matter.." "WE WON! YOU LOST!" "The election wasn't fair.." "DOESN'T MATTER, NUMBERS!" ..

That's essentially what you're doing here. You keep touting the election numbers as if they matter when we're debating whether or not the election was legitimate. I say it wasn't, based on the evidence that shows the Clinton campaign took control of the DNC well before the primary even began. Holding total control over the organization that nominates the Democratic candidate is cheating whether you choose to deny it or not. It means every aspect of running for president is tilted in one candidates favor, effectively subverting democracy, like you and others pretend to care so much about when "Russia" is the one accused of doing it. Again, though, when the candidate you support verifiably does it, ehhh, "fake news"...
 
Padawanbater2 said:
DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, repeatedly leaked debate questions to Clinton campaign
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
What's more important: Democracy or winning?
Of course you do. Clinton took control of the DNC, the "democratic" organization responsible for electing the Democratic candidate to run for president, before the Democratic primary. One candidate had total control over party operations and funding, the other didn't. That is cheating. Everyone knows it, and there's nothing controversial about admitting it, the vast majority of Americans who follow American politics know that Clinton cheated during the primary.

Then explain how utilizing complete control over the democratic organization responsible for nominating the Democratic candidate for president is not cheating. If Donald Trump bought and controlled the RNC during the Republican primary, then was nominated to run against Clinton and won, you would be screaming about corruption. But Clinton does it, and it's fine by you, because you supported her. That's called political hackery. You're inconsistent when it comes to people and hypocritical on issues when the politicians you support do unsavory things.

...because the Clinton campaign cheated. It's very weird to hold up the number of votes in an unfair election as evidence of legitimate victory.. You understand that, right? "WE WON BY MILLIONS OF VOTES!!!" "Right.. but the election was unfair, so none of those numbers actually matter.." "WE WON! YOU LOST!" "The election wasn't fair.." "DOESN'T MATTER, NUMBERS!" ..

That's essentially what you're doing here. You keep touting the election numbers as if they matter when we're debating whether or not the election was legitimate. I say it wasn't, based on the evidence that shows the Clinton campaign took control of the DNC well before the primary even began. Holding total control over the organization that nominates the Democratic candidate is cheating whether you choose to deny it or not. It means every aspect of running for president is tilted in one candidates favor, effectively subverting democracy, like you and others pretend to care so much about when "Russia" is the one accused of doing it. Again, though, when the candidate you support verifiably does it, ehhh, "fake news"...
Click to expand...

the only person who got extra help was bernie. the russians ran interference for him, otherwise he wouldn;t have got within 20 points of clinton.

it was rigged for bernie by the russians.

this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to a grand jury, dickhole.
 
Jimdamick said:
So you really think Stein voters would have chosen Trump over Clinton?
Be serious (or at least rational)
Click to expand...
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I don’t really buy it. And the rub is Pennsylvania, which was close but not that close. You have to assume that almost all of Stein’s voters would have gone to Clinton. But both pre-election polls and the national exit poll suggests that a lot of them wouldn’t have voted at all, if they’d been forced to pick between the two major candidates. The breakdown might have been something like 35 percent Clinton, 10 percent Trump and 55 percent wouldn’t vote. That doesn’t wind up netting very many votes for HRC.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I don’t really buy it. And the rub is Pennsylvania, which was close but not that close. You have to assume that almost all of Stein’s voters would have gone to Clinton. But both pre-election polls and the national exit poll suggests that a lot of them wouldn’t have voted at all, if they’d been forced to pick between the two major candidates. The breakdown might have been something like 35 percent Clinton, 10 percent Trump and 55 percent wouldn’t vote. That doesn’t wind up netting very many votes for HRC.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate Clinton so much?
Just curious.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I don’t really buy it. And the rub is Pennsylvania, which was close but not that close. You have to assume that almost all of Stein’s voters would have gone to Clinton. But both pre-election polls and the national exit poll suggests that a lot of them wouldn’t have voted at all, if they’d been forced to pick between the two major candidates. The breakdown might have been something like 35 percent Clinton, 10 percent Trump and 55 percent wouldn’t vote. That doesn’t wind up netting very many votes for HRC.
Click to expand...
Padawanbater2 said:
DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, repeatedly leaked debate questions to Clinton campaign
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
What's more important: Democracy or winning?
Of course you do. Clinton took control of the DNC, the "democratic" organization responsible for electing the Democratic candidate to run for president, before the Democratic primary. One candidate had total control over party operations and funding, the other didn't. That is cheating. Everyone knows it, and there's nothing controversial about admitting it, the vast majority of Americans who follow American politics know that Clinton cheated during the primary.

Then explain how utilizing complete control over the democratic organization responsible for nominating the Democratic candidate for president is not cheating. If Donald Trump bought and controlled the RNC during the Republican primary, then was nominated to run against Clinton and won, you would be screaming about corruption. But Clinton does it, and it's fine by you, because you supported her. That's called political hackery. You're inconsistent when it comes to people and hypocritical on issues when the politicians you support do unsavory things.

...because the Clinton campaign cheated. It's very weird to hold up the number of votes in an unfair election as evidence of legitimate victory.. You understand that, right? "WE WON BY MILLIONS OF VOTES!!!" "Right.. but the election was unfair, so none of those numbers actually matter.." "WE WON! YOU LOST!" "The election wasn't fair.." "DOESN'T MATTER, NUMBERS!" ..

That's essentially what you're doing here. You keep touting the election numbers as if they matter when we're debating whether or not the election was legitimate. I say it wasn't, based on the evidence that shows the Clinton campaign took control of the DNC well before the primary even began. Holding total control over the organization that nominates the Democratic candidate is cheating whether you choose to deny it or not. It means every aspect of running for president is tilted in one candidates favor, effectively subverting democracy, like you and others pretend to care so much about when "Russia" is the one accused of doing it. Again, though, when the candidate you support verifiably does it, ehhh, "fake news"...
Click to expand...
I guess you stopped when you got the news you wanted. Donna Brazile said exactly what I said. Clinton did not take unfair advantage of of the power she had when she funded the DNC. That's not cheating.
Nate Silver was talking about the general election. What he said was he couldn't see evidence that votes were rigged. I agree. Yet when it comes to the primary, you selectively choose to recall only old news that was later discredited.

If you want to complain about rules being broken the both Bernie and Clinton did that.

Donna Brazile said the primary was not rigged. Same with a judge who went over the facts of the election. Do you even know what Brazile's main complaint was?

Bernie lost and it was because he did not attract enough votes from Black, Hispanic and women voters. You again deflect away from the basic fact that Bernie only won a majority from white male voters. Explain that.

Don't quote old news that was later discredited. Explain why only a majority of white Democratic party male voters voted for Bernie. Without a good explanation, your claims of rigged have more than the whiff of white racism and male sexism.
 
68e3507eeebb130bbc15a9de7efc9b6813249b6f301641ee99ea28288c609661.png
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Funding the DNC as a Democratic candidate running in the Democratic primary ensures an unfair advantage.

Ensuring an unfair advantage during the Democratic primary is absolutely cheating
Click to expand...
So, explain. If Clinton cheated, how come white men were able to resist and vote for Bernie. I wasn't affected. Neither were you. So, how come all this cheating only affected women and dark people? Hmmmmmm? Basically, your theory has more than the whiff of racism and sexism in it. Why can't you admit that?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Address my post.
Click to expand...
I have many times already. It's you whom I've asked the same question to for months now and you keep skimming over it.

Clinton did not cheat. That's what Donna Brazille said, she had a better look at the data than you did. Get over yourself.
Brazile: I found no evidence Democratic primary was rigged
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/politics/donna-brazile-primary-rigged/index.html

I could post more statements but what's the use? You are stuck on a single track and won't leave it.

So, I ask then, what about the primary polling data? If Clinton cheated, why did she do so much better than Bernie in all but one demographic? Why wouldn't there be a relatively uniform result across all demographics? Clinton won solidly in the black, Hispanic and women vote. White women voters went solidly to Clinton. It was only in the group of white male voters where Bernie managed to get a majority. It was a big majority, 60%. But no other groups gave him even a tiny majority of the vote. He was trashed by black votes, barely managing 20% of their votes.

This is a gaping hole in your theory that I simply can't get past. If Clinton cheated, where is the evidence in the polls? If Clinton cheated at the national level as you claim, why were only women, black and brown people affected?

Why do you keep dodging this question? If you are right, then there has to be a reason. I think your theory reeks of sexism and racism.
 
Last edited:
Trump is your President...... And he will be again in 2020........... Get over it...............

God Bless America,.............
 
norcaliwood said:
Trump is your President...... And he will be again in 2020........... Get over it...............
God Bless America,.............
Click to expand...
trump is a lamebrained inept moron, unstable crook, pathological liar and an unqualified aberration, and soon to be an asterisked & epitomized error of the system to go down in infamy as an example of the single worst disastrous historical failure & mistake to date of the american experiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top