United States of Corporate America

MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You and I are reading the same words, right?

"it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race"

The quote goes on to describe moral outrage. If you want to claim moral outrage then I'm sympathetic. The question I ask you is, so what? If you want to claim the election is invalid then obviously there is a higher standard of proof for that. In your own post, you say it can't be proven.

I don't even think we have a disagreement.
Click to expand...
we agree the DNC willfully conspired to work against it's own candidate?
we agree that it could very well have had an effect?
we agree the leadership resigned because they were in fact guilty of this conspiracy?
we agree it's easier to run an effective campaign when your party is not working against you?

if we agree on this things, then we agree Bernie could have won had he not been betrayed by his own party. The losing margin was not too wide.

These are not complaints. These are rational thoughts that analyze those facts we agree on and conclude it could very well have effected the outcome.

If someone was saying that it is a fact that is the reason why he lost, that's not my argument. it's not a fact.
But it is a fact that having leadership view you that way is going to hurt you. and that hurt is incalculable.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
I mean, trump was up against a 'rigged' primary and he won the nomination. If Bernie couldnt overcome that in the primaries, I don't imagine he could have won the general.
Click to expand...
What evidence is there that the Republican primary was rigged?

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.
UncleBuck said:
i will smear your good name to get julian castro nominated.

but, ya know, if that doesn't work out, i will be 100% on board with your guy.

berniebots: take note, this is how it works^^^^
Click to expand...
Would you still support Booker if he rigged the democratic primary against Castro?
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What evidence is there that the Republican primary was rigged?

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.

Would you still support Booker if he rigged the democratic primary against Castro?
Click to expand...

The RNC did everything they could to stop trump from getting to 267. There was talk all the way up to convention of denying him the delegates needed to clench the nomination.

As far as Bernie goes, he could only pull solid support from a limited demographic.
Say, don't you have a butt hurt white boy thread to tend to?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
The RNC did everything they could to stop trump from getting to 267. There was talk all the way up to convention of denying him the delegates needed to clench the nomination.
Click to expand...
Did they? Where's the evidence?
Justin-case said:
As far as Bernie goes, he could only pull solid support from a limited demographic.
Click to expand...
Right, because the democratic primary was rigged against him. Had it been a fair election, the outcome could have likely been very different. Unfortunately the Clinton campaign ensured it wasn't, so we'll never know. I'd think if you actually cared so much, you'd hold the Clinton campaign to the fire for rigging the primary
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely a ‘Political Promise’

So naive of us..

"The DNC lawyers’ argument here is that the charter’s demand that the chair and DNC staff remain neutral throughout the Democratic primary is a political promise, similar to policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren’t fulfilled when in office. The lawyers cite an argument made in another court case stating that voters are free to vote out politicians. In their initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit, DNC lawyers argued Bernie Sanders supporters were aware the DNC and Wasserman Schultz were biased against their candidate. Now their argument is a neutral DNC and DNC chair are just political promises, leaving voters susceptible to the deception that the DNC would treat Clinton and Sanders equally. The lawyers argue liability only applies to consumer-merchant relationships"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top