No, you infantilizing asshole. The fact that you’re still pushing this stupid game means you clearly don’t intend to argue in good faith. The fact that even after making me explain a very simple and straightforward statement you still think the vote results are relevant to a discussion about the corruption of the 2016 primaries means you’re just yet another liberal apologetic. If you’re unwilling to grapple with the fact that the DNC is a corrupt organization, we’re done here.
It’s really amazing that out of the many people who want to talk about how Bernie should have won the 2016 primary, none of them are willing to post the results, where he lost by a significant number of votes.
It’s almost like they think the less popular candidate should have been democratically selected.
Show me an election where the less popular candidate won, and I’ll agree with you that it’s totally bullshit, and the system was rigged, and needs to be reworked.
I’m always open to discuss further, but you will need to confirm that you know the results of the 2016 DNC primary.
Right, the vote from the election where the winning candidate installed a sycophant as head of DNC who eventually had to resign in disgrace because she was actively rigging the election for Clinton. The election where the Clinton campaign siphoned funds from state races for her own campaign. The election where the Control campaign had documented authority over what the DNC could say. The election where the media, working for the same elite class, reported Clinton as insurmountably ahead before a single primary vote had been cast.
That’s the election that you think the end vote is even a little bit relevant for when people are talking about how it was a corrupt election? Give me a break, you’re just a standard issue neoliberal apologist.
You’re the one disconnected with reality. You seriously think you’re winning an argument by petulantly saying the same irrelevant thing over and over. The vote count is not relevant to this discussion when the main offenses occurred before a single vote was cast and very much influenced the course of the election. That’s why the corrupted DNC in collusion with the Clinton campaign did them in the first place.
Oooh… Look at that. Still didn’t meet the bare minimum to discuss further.
I’m gonna make a prediction, you aren’t going to to go look up the results of the 2016 primary and post them here, on your next post. If you don’t, then it’s a pretty blatant admission that you have no interest in actually discussing efficacy of shifting party position by using the primary process, and instead you’d rather throw out ad-hominem attacks and bitch about the results of a primary that, statistically speaking, you probably didn’t even bother to vote in.
Yes, Hillary got more votes. Not just delegates, like your cute little chart there shows, but actual individual votes. Amongst DNC primary voters, she was the more popular candidate.
The argument before the court was that legally the DNC could select their own candidate, not that it did. So it woudn’t matter if the allegations were true or not.
The other side argued that since the case went to court, the facts of the case must be “true enough to be heard.” Which is a pretty low standard to clear TBH.
“Well we argued it in court, so it must be true enough to be heard.”
The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the Court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the Court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled.
Which may technically true, but does not mean that the DNC prevented Bernie from being their candidate.
Did the DNC select their own candidate? Or did they go with the candidate that their voters selected?
Because by the numbers, Bernie was short by a few million votes.
I’m sure that if he had won the primary, then the DNC would have backed him against the wishes of their establishment supporting members, doubly so in light of recent events regarding the NYC mayoral race.
No, you infantilizing asshole. The fact that you’re still pushing this stupid game means you clearly don’t intend to argue in good faith. The fact that even after making me explain a very simple and straightforward statement you still think the vote results are relevant to a discussion about the corruption of the 2016 primaries means you’re just yet another liberal apologetic. If you’re unwilling to grapple with the fact that the DNC is a corrupt organization, we’re done here.
It’s really amazing that out of the many people who want to talk about how Bernie should have won the 2016 primary, none of them are willing to post the results, where he lost by a significant number of votes.
It’s almost like they think the less popular candidate should have been democratically selected.
Show me an election where the less popular candidate won, and I’ll agree with you that it’s totally bullshit, and the system was rigged, and needs to be reworked.
I’m always open to discuss further, but you will need to confirm that you know the results of the 2016 DNC primary.
Right, the vote from the election where the winning candidate installed a sycophant as head of DNC who eventually had to resign in disgrace because she was actively rigging the election for Clinton. The election where the Clinton campaign siphoned funds from state races for her own campaign. The election where the Control campaign had documented authority over what the DNC could say. The election where the media, working for the same elite class, reported Clinton as insurmountably ahead before a single primary vote had been cast.
That’s the election that you think the end vote is even a little bit relevant for when people are talking about how it was a corrupt election? Give me a break, you’re just a standard issue neoliberal apologist.
Coming over here doesn’t change shit. Please, prove you are connected to reality.
You’re the one disconnected with reality. You seriously think you’re winning an argument by petulantly saying the same irrelevant thing over and over. The vote count is not relevant to this discussion when the main offenses occurred before a single vote was cast and very much influenced the course of the election. That’s why the corrupted DNC in collusion with the Clinton campaign did them in the first place.
Oooh… Look at that. Still didn’t meet the bare minimum to discuss further.
I’m gonna make a prediction, you aren’t going to to go look up the results of the 2016 primary and post them here, on your next post. If you don’t, then it’s a pretty blatant admission that you have no interest in actually discussing efficacy of shifting party position by using the primary process, and instead you’d rather throw out ad-hominem attacks and bitch about the results of a primary that, statistically speaking, you probably didn’t even bother to vote in.
Are you suggesting that Hillary was more popular than Bernie?
Unfortunately, yes.
Right, right.
Okay, I now give you permission to say your thing. Let the binds that shackle this one be broken free.
https://communicationleadership.usc.edu/files/2016/03/results.jpg
Yes, Hillary got more votes. Not just delegates, like your cute little chart there shows, but actual individual votes. Amongst DNC primary voters, she was the more popular candidate.
Man, this was your chart. You just had me run around like a service animal to find it for you.
Anyway, I think this quote from this article is pretty funny.
The argument before the court was that legally the DNC could select their own candidate, not that it did. So it woudn’t matter if the allegations were true or not.
The other side argued that since the case went to court, the facts of the case must be “true enough to be heard.” Which is a pretty low standard to clear TBH.
Which may technically true, but does not mean that the DNC prevented Bernie from being their candidate.
Did the DNC select their own candidate? Or did they go with the candidate that their voters selected?
Because by the numbers, Bernie was short by a few million votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
I’m sure that if he had won the primary, then the DNC would have backed him against the wishes of their establishment supporting members, doubly so in light of recent events regarding the NYC mayoral race.