this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
916 points (92.9% liked)
People Twitter
4964 readers
1423 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol.
Man's name was on the ticket.
People didn't fucking vote for him.
Nobody stopped them. Nobody.
People didn't want Bernie Sanders. I did. I voted for him twice. But I'm so fucking sick of this goofy-assed narrative that absolves the public of their civic fucking responsibility.
Nobody stole our vote. Nobody. His name was on the ticket. People didn't vote for him.
100% this. I supported him, donated lots to his campaign, and the people just didn’t turn out to vote. The left are notorious for this. Every four years, they become online-only activists and yell at everyone to either not vote- or to throw away a vote via third-party.
And then, they vanish without a trace only to resurface later on as victims of their own decisions. And what’s funny about the whole thing is that they complain so much about “status quo,” but fail to realize they’re as status quo as it gets.
Mah boi about to get down voted to hell for speaking facts
I'm from Kentucky. His name was never on any ballot I had access to. Would have voted for him if I ever actually had the opportunity to do so.
Yeah, but Clinton got some debate questions beforehand and private chatter clearly showed that the brass preferred her. This is literally unforgiveable because, just like braindead Trump supporters, I fell for the "it was rigged" despite the complete lack of evidence. And even worse in this case because Clinton crushed him!
I think you're missing the part where Clinton paid off the DNC's debts and became it's only financial lifeline, for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abdicated control of party to Clinton's team long before she secured the nomination.
An improper relationship and something certainly to be suspicious about. But you aren't pointing to anything that did actually sway or control the election.
I'm a proof is in the pudding guy, and it's time to drop the whole narrative.
Silly me, I thought that the investigation of interim DNC chair Donna Brazile that showed that Clinton had undue influence over the DNC over a year before the primary, a superdelegate system that heavily favored Clinton, and the fact that the AP called the race the night before 6 states voted was pretty good evidence. I see that this single academic paper and the fact that no one wrote about email with the subject line, "Best way to rig the primaries for Clinton," proves otherwise.
You cherry pick some facts, make vague claims to stuff, and don't quantify at all how much they influenced the primary.
You're the equivalent of the trump supporters who cry "but they moved some boxes under a table!" You have nothing but suspicion, and actual analysis of whether or not there is evidence of any kind of rigging revealed nothing, in both cases.
The facts suck when they don't support what you want to be the truth, but it's time to wake up and accept it.
I don't know what to tell you dude; I don't know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where Clinton didn't take over the DNC's finances before the election. I don't have a time machine.
I can tell you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the primary was rigged, prominent Democrats like Harry Reid admitted it was an unfair primary, and when the DNC was sued by Sanders donors for fraud, they chose to argue that not that the primary was fair, but that the DNC was under no legal obligation to run a fair primary. I can also tell you that comparing real evidence of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to win her the nomination (for which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign) isn't the same as Trump supporters wild fantasies about ballot stuffing, and anyone who would draw a false equivalence between the two is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of the basic facts surrounding the 2016 primary.
Of course you don't because you're spewing opinion, which you convinced yourself is fact, and I'm providing you with actual analysis, which contradicts what you want to be true. As I said, the facts suck when we don't want them to be true
Listen to yourself, youre misrepresenting the opinion of Harry Reid to make your point. You want me to point to you the opinion of establishment democrats who agree it was fair...or do their opinions only count when they agree with you?
This is you my dude. I've referenced, like, 5 different real world events, and your response is to show me a single academic article that backs up your worldview (which I'm pretty sure you didn't read, since you didn't actually reference any of its contents) and say I sound like a Trump supporter. You think I'm misrepresenting Harry Reid? Here's the quote:
Sounds a lot like Harry Reid is saying Bernie Sanders wasn't given a fair shot at the primary. Sounds a lot like I was giving a fairly accurate interpretation of his words. Sounds a lot like you were spewing your opinion as a fact when you said I misrepresented him.
I'm done. You're a deeply unserious person and this is a waste of my time.
The article looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things. Claiming it is a single point is like claiming that you've provided a single point because it was just "a single comment." And does it really need to be explained that quantity != quality? Like you, trump supporters point to a lot of things that they find suspicious. Like you, they cant actually provide anything significant that actually would rise to stolen/rigged.
This is you dealing with the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe you are evidence based, but when faced with evidence that contradicts what you think you know to be the truth figuring out a way to ignore it.
But realize it isn't me you're angry at.
You are taking one paper, from one individual, who by the way, appears to have a pro Clinton bias based on his debate analysis, and treating it as though it is scientific fact. Also, I think if you were being honest, you'd admit that you only found the article because you did a web search for, "was the Democratic primary rigged," and picked the first thing that supported your worldview, while ignoring everything that contradicted it. That's cognitive dissonance, and it's why you are a deeply unserious person. I'm done. Go waste someone else's time.
Lol this is hilarious. Notice how you didn't address any points in the actual paper, you just searched the Internet, found an opinion of his you could use to claim bias. Makes it easier than actually having to consider the facts.
You've also got me completely wrong. Like you, I thought the DNC fucked sanders. I bought into the narrative too and as the facts were initially coming out, they seemed pretty damning to me. And I was pissed.
However, after the dust settled I looked around objectively reanalyzed the facts and realized that there was really no substance to the claims sanders was screwed.
Did the DNC prefer Clinton? Yes. We're there things they did wrong that hurt Sanders? Sure. Is there evidence that the primary was rigged? Not, not a shred. You've not provided anything. All you've done, like a good trump supporter, is point to things that make you suspicious. And like you I was suspicious to so I don't consider that unreasonable.
But now that the facts have come out, to still hold onto that initial assumption is evidence of desperately trying to hold onto a worldview.
You didn't bring up any points of the paper! You literally just posted a link saying, "the proof is in the pudding." You clearly didn't read it, so why would I do more work to refute your point than you did to make it? You're not only going to ignore every point I bring up, but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share, even though you can't even articulate what you're linking to?
The closest thing you've done to commenting on the content of the paper was saying it, "looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things." You're like the kid that didn't read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back. Oh, you think this paper has, "actual analysis," from, "many different angles," and, "quantifies things?" How specific! Clearly you've read the entire thing and have a commanding grasp of its contents.
I mean, FFS, I typed, "was the Democratic primary rigged," and this paper was the second result, and the first one that did nothing to challenge your world view. This is just embarrassing.
OK, I know I've said this twice already, but I'm really done now. I've wasted enough of my life dunking on you. This is starting to be embarrassing for me as well. You can go ahead and have the last word. I'm out.
Wait, you think I need to reiterate all the points in the paper rather than just have you read the primary source? What sense does this make?
What, exactly, made this clear?
No, I "expect" (I suspect you're too far into this now to ever admit you may have been wrong, so I don't actually expect it) you to read the link (or at least skim over it) and realize that the facts don't support your conclusion that the election was rigged against Sanders. The paper provides some pretty compelling evidence. The most damning that the DNC controls the caucuses, while the states run their individual primaries. . .and Sanders did better in the ones run by the DNC. It's funny that you put more effort "refuting" the paper by scouring the web to give you some kind of out, rather than actually addressing anything in the papers themselves.
And if that's me, you're the kid who just read the title and concluded you know everything about the book, then when showed the synopsis you deny that's what it's about. You probably would say something genius like "If I search for 'synopsis of book' this synopsis is one of the first results!" lol literally anything to avoid the actual point.
Without addressing a single thing in the paper too. Well done. But sure, Harry Reid said he wasn't give a fair shake. That's it, it was obviously rigged against him. Damn, super convincing.
I literally just posted an analysis of the primary, that goes far deeper than winning the popular vote...and you're saying I think it's just the popular vote?
DNC machinations were pretty one sided for Bernie. Mainstream dems were telling me "he's not a real democrat so why should we vote for him"
he. was. the. better. person.