Clinton absolutely crushed sanders. I'm not sure what you believe reality looks like. But if it ain't that, then you should probably look elsewhere for that insult.
Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
What Brazile did find was a memorandum of agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she said.
“The thing, the only thing, I found -- which I said, 'I found the cancer, but I'm not killing the patient' -- was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” Brazile said on “This Week.”
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
but she didn’t invalidate shit
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
For example, if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2
Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the
2016 election.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Barbara Boxer, Donna Brazile and others) did.
Also the nefarious “counting and reporting” on sUpeRdELeGaTes before their votes had even been cast— thus trying to manipulate the public. It really left a very foul taste and I remember it well.
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
This is like going onto The_Donald and pointing out that he is a convicted rapist, and a fraud who tried to steal an election. . .and when inevitably when you get tons of downvotes someone saying "Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting." lol
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
She won by 12 percentage points in the popular vote. Removing super delegates, she won 57% of the delegates.
It was never in doubt. She was the overwhelming favorite, right from the start. This didn't stop me from holding out hope, BTW.
You might be upset with how it was run (or how it was reported? Which is funny because the media made it look like Sanders had a much better chance than he had. Remember, an actual race is more interesting than a blowout), but the simple fact is that Clinton was just a far more popular candidate than Sanders. Neither us thinks it should be the case, but that's the general democrat voter. It's time to move on and accept the facts, instead of posting in alternating caps as if that makes the facts go away.
I reject your gaslighting.
You are rejecting the facts. What you are doing is showing what people do when they are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pretending that Republicans are dumb for ignoring the evidence and believing the election was fraudulent, while trying to simultaneously ignoring the evidence that the 2016 nomination was rigged and that Clinton didn't crush Sanders.
But, don't worry, just like Trump supporters, you're too far gone at this point and thus are impenetrable to facts. So I don't expect you to come around. I'm just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn't come from a place of rational thought.
>So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
any intellectually honest user who reads this thread can only conclude that the nomination was rigged.
“The election was rigged!”
Who do we all know that also says this when they lose?
Rachel maddow? Keith olberman? Hillary Clinton?
*your version
There is documentary video evidence of what Barbara Boxer did.
Stop gaslighting.
Because someone posts factual information you disagree with- it does not become gaslighting just because you want it to.
Look up what gaslighting means. Then stop using it incorrectly in debates. It makes you look foolish.
The person you’re arguing with is not wrong. And that’s not an opinion. It’s factual information that reality supports.
Clinton absolutely crushed sanders. I'm not sure what you believe reality looks like. But if it ain't that, then you should probably look elsewhere for that insult.
they admitted they rigged that primary
No they didn't. No primary was rigged.
Elizabeth Warren and Donna brazile disagree
No they don't.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
And Donna Brazille says there is "no evidence" the primaries were rigged. Making the statement clearly false.
Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
As this paper points out:
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Barbara Boxer, Donna Brazile and others) did.
Also the nefarious “counting and reporting” on sUpeRdELeGaTes before their votes had even been cast— thus trying to manipulate the public. It really left a very foul taste and I remember it well.
This is like going onto The_Donald and pointing out that he is a convicted rapist, and a fraud who tried to steal an election. . .and when inevitably when you get tons of downvotes someone saying "Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting." lol
She won by 12 percentage points in the popular vote. Removing super delegates, she won 57% of the delegates.
It was never in doubt. She was the overwhelming favorite, right from the start. This didn't stop me from holding out hope, BTW.
You might be upset with how it was run (or how it was reported? Which is funny because the media made it look like Sanders had a much better chance than he had. Remember, an actual race is more interesting than a blowout), but the simple fact is that Clinton was just a far more popular candidate than Sanders. Neither us thinks it should be the case, but that's the general democrat voter. It's time to move on and accept the facts, instead of posting in alternating caps as if that makes the facts go away.
I reject your gaslighting.
You are rejecting the facts. What you are doing is showing what people do when they are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pretending that Republicans are dumb for ignoring the evidence and believing the election was fraudulent, while trying to simultaneously ignoring the evidence that the 2016 nomination was rigged and that Clinton didn't crush Sanders.
But, don't worry, just like Trump supporters, you're too far gone at this point and thus are impenetrable to facts. So I don't expect you to come around. I'm just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn't come from a place of rational thought.
>So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
any intellectually honest user who reads this thread can only conclude that the nomination was rigged.
“The election was rigged!”
Who do we all know that also says this when they lose?
Rachel maddow? Keith olberman? Hillary Clinton?
*your version
There is documentary video evidence of what Barbara Boxer did.
Stop gaslighting.
Because someone posts factual information you disagree with- it does not become gaslighting just because you want it to.
Look up what gaslighting means. Then stop using it incorrectly in debates. It makes you look foolish.
The person you’re arguing with is not wrong. And that’s not an opinion. It’s factual information that reality supports.