Comment by EatATaco@lemm.ee on What could have been...

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!

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.

I don’t know what to tell you dude

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?

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?

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.

What could have been...(lemmy.world)

People Twitter

!whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

Community stats

Community moderators