EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[Padawanbater2]

We've gone around and around about this. Bernie didn't win enough votes in the important delegations of the party. You seem to think that everybody who voted for Hillary were unduly influenced by machinations of some really stupid people in the DNC. (Have you read the extracts that have been published?) Nonetheless, you are saying that you and I and all the other Sanders supporters were clear headed and unaffected but the majority of the Democratic Party's voters were not. I think that's elitist and don't buy that argument. Hillary got 31% more votes than Bernie did, most of the black and Hispanic votes and a clear majority of the women's vote. Using past elections as a guide, the shit that went on by the DNC maybe might have affected a percent or two. But I don't think even that.

That's your opinion, my opinion is different. Since we can't prove either of our opinions, I don't see how this line of criticism is relevant

Here, you're essentially agreeing with me that the DNC cheated, we simply disagree on the degree of its effectiveness. I think what matters is they cheated at all, you think what matters is only if the cheating affected the election

Can you explain why it doesn't matter if the DNC cheated if it didn't affect the outcome of the election when you don't know if it did or not?

Once we can rule out an actual steal and can rule out actual laws broken then it comes down to a morals issue. There you do have a point. The Democratic Party hacks behaved abysmally. But in this case, I can see no evidence that Hillary was involved. And so, I'm not morally outraged regarding Hillary or her winning the nomination over this. I'm interested in going back after the election and seeing that something is done to prevent it in the future.

I don't see how that can be ruled out one way or the other since there isn't enough information to make that conclusion. I don't think the DNC would have destroyed their reputation and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would have risked her job for nothing, I think it's naive to believe it didn't affect the outcome of the election in any considerable way, but since I obviously can't prove that, I won't use that line of reasoning to make an argument, just stating my opinion

Clinton's involvement to whatever degree, again, is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding addressing my analogy to Monopoly - it wouldn't matter to the legitimacy of the game if Buck was aware of my behavior as the bank - so why would it matter to the legitimacy of the election if Clinton was aware of the DNCs behavior as a "neutral party" during the primary?

That funding issue with the Hillary Victory Fund chaps me though. Again, I'm not going to have a fit over it but I wonder how much "help" the DNC will actually give to State Parties based upon those Victory fund dollars. Hillary's campaign made out pretty well from that bit of shenanigans. I don't like it but it's not enough to move me to vote for Trump. I'd like to see this kind of instrument cleaned up too.

But I'm not in a dither over this. As far as I can tell, this is politics as usual. You can reply with your usual flame.

So what if someone donated the maximum legal amount to Clinton, then donated the maximum legal amount to the HVF under the presumption it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates that then got funnelled back to Clinton's campaign directly? Wouldn't that mean that same person donated the maximum legal amount to one political candidate twice?

I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that was actually illegal according to the FEC

 

[Fogdog]

That's your opinion, my opinion is different. Since we can't prove either of our opinions, I don't see how this line of criticism is relevant

Here, you're essentially agreeing with me that the DNC cheated, we simply disagree on the degree of its effectiveness. I think what matters is they cheated at all, you think what matters is only if the cheating affected the election

Can you explain why it doesn't matter if the DNC cheated if it didn't affect the outcome of the election when you don't know if it did or not?

I don't see how that can be ruled out one way or the other since there isn't enough information to make that conclusion. I don't think the DNC would have destroyed their reputation and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would have risked her job for nothing, I think it's naive to believe it didn't affect the outcome of the election in any considerable way, but since I obviously can't prove that, I won't use that line of reasoning to make an argument, just stating my opinion

Clinton's involvement to whatever degree, again, is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding addressing my analogy to Monopoly - it wouldn't matter to the legitimacy of the game if Buck was aware of my behavior as the bank - so why would it matter to the legitimacy of the election if Clinton was aware of the DNCs behavior as a "neutral party" during the primary?

So what if someone donated the maximum legal amount to Clinton, then donated the maximum legal amount to the HVF under the presumption it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates that then got funnelled back to Clinton's campaign directly? Wouldn't that mean that same person donated the maximum legal amount to one political candidate twice?

I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that was actually illegal according to the FEC

I've already said all I can say. You and I have a different opinion. That's OK. We do agree on more than we disagree. That's important to me. I'll raise an objection or two along the way but I'm pretty much done repeating myself to you.

 

[ttystikk]

Now hold on there varmint.

Subverting democracy to me would be ignoring and defeating the will of the people. That didn't happen. What did happen is dirty and I'm not obtuse about the facts of what happened. If the election had come down to 1% or 2% difference then I'd be really hot about it. But a 31% difference is a landslide and makes the DNC shenanigans foolish. The will of the majority of the Democratic Party was that Hillary be its nominee.

After the election I will follow up on this and see what my representatives are doing to put rules or even laws in place to assure DNC neutrality.

So it's okay if you think it was ineffective?

That's pretty sad. What's even sadder is that you actually seem to want me to rebut that steaming pile of nonsense.

And you still have not one shred of evidence it wasn't effective, and that the cover-up story- that it wasn't tampered with enough to matter, lol- is somehow credible, coming as it does from the very same folks who were up to their necks in committing said shenanigans in the first place.

You should be outraged; they shit on your vote. Instead you're passive. You're a sheep and don't deserve to live in a free society.

Go bleat in the corner while you wait to be shorn, yet again.

 

[ttystikk]

That's your opinion, my opinion is different. Since we can't prove either of our opinions, I don't see how this line of criticism is relevant

Here, you're essentially agreeing with me that the DNC cheated, we simply disagree on the degree of its effectiveness. I think what matters is they cheated at all, you think what matters is only if the cheating affected the election

Can you explain why it doesn't matter if the DNC cheated if it didn't affect the outcome of the election when you don't know if it did or not?

I don't see how that can be ruled out one way or the other since there isn't enough information to make that conclusion. I don't think the DNC would have destroyed their reputation and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would have risked her job for nothing, I think it's naive to believe it didn't affect the outcome of the election in any considerable way, but since I obviously can't prove that, I won't use that line of reasoning to make an argument, just stating my opinion

Clinton's involvement to whatever degree, again, is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding addressing my analogy to Monopoly - it wouldn't matter to the legitimacy of the game if Buck was aware of my behavior as the bank - so why would it matter to the legitimacy of the election if Clinton was aware of the DNCs behavior as a "neutral party" during the primary?

So what if someone donated the maximum legal amount to Clinton, then donated the maximum legal amount to the HVF under the presumption it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates that then got funnelled back to Clinton's campaign directly? Wouldn't that mean that same person donated the maximum legal amount to one political candidate twice?

I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that was actually illegal according to the FEC

The problem with your argument is that it's logical, rational and fits the facts.

No damned wonder the average American can't follow along.

 

[ttystikk]

I've already said all I can say. You and I have a different opinion. That's OK. We do agree on more than we disagree. That's important to me. I'll raise an objection or two along the way but I'm pretty much done repeating myself to you.

Baaaaa baaaaaa...

the shearing station is to the left. Follow the other sheep.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I've already said all I can say. You and I have a different opinion. That's OK. We do agree on more than we disagree. That's important to me. I'll raise an objection or two along the way but I'm pretty much done repeating myself to you.

No, dick

You stay and defend this. We're two adults having a conversation that actually matters. I'm asking you for clarification. For you to exit now is the same as you tossing the monopoly board and saying "Fuck this game!" when Buck hotels all his properties, which is ironic considering you didn't comment on the bank giving him double the cash to begin with, but all of a sudden it's unfair now when the game is almost over?

Truly, funny that..

 

[Fogdog]

So what if someone donated the maximum legal amount to Clinton, then donated the maximum legal amount to the HVF under the presumption it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates that then got funnelled back to Clinton's campaign directly? Wouldn't that mean that same person donated the maximum legal amount to one political candidate twice?

I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that was actually illegal according to the FEC

I'm no lawyer either and find this whole thing arcane. I think this article answers your question:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/may/05/george-clooney/george-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/

The way the donations are divided is explained at the bottom of the Hillary Victory Fund page on the Clinton website. The first $2,700 goes to Clinton, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC and the rest goes to state parties.

How does this translate into total donations for each group?

If you look at the money going out, which is available through campaign finance reports, it looks like Clinton is getting most of the money.

The Clinton campaign gets the lion's share of the money collected by the Victory Fund, said Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin, because most of the donors give much smaller amounts, and everything up to $2,700 per person is earmarked to go to Hillary for America first.

It's when a donor exceeds that limit that the excess spills over to benefit the national and state Democratic committees.

Or — in the case of the state parties — that's how it appears on paper.
------
Federal Election Commission records show that in most cases, the money given to the state parties has been immediately redirected to the DNC. The money isn't staying with the states at all.
-----
The Hillary Victory Fund sent $214,100 to Minnesota, for example, and that state party didn't keep a dime. It was routed to the DNC, which otherwise wouldn’t have been able to accept the money "since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee," Politico reported.
-----
So if money is going back to the DNC, what’s it being spent on?

The overarching response of both the Clinton campaign and the DNC was that the money being diverted to the DNC was, in fact, being used to help local Democrats get elected. Those candidates need voter information, research, media monitoring, organizing capacity and other infrastructure services provided by the DNC to run a successful campaign, and that's how the money was being used.

However, such services also benefit the Clinton campaign.

I think what is going on is that most donors don't donate more than $2700. All of that money goes to Clinton's campaign. When big donations come in, everything over $36,100 goes to the states and they send the money back to the DNC to cover costs of services that they would have to do anyway. This pays for a central office that handles administrative tasks common to all campaigns and cuts overhead for each state because everybody pays for a central office. Of course, Hillary comes up the big winner in all of this. At least that's how I understand what's supposed to happen. Does it? Well from reading those e-mails, probably not. Still, I'll wait and see if any state campaigns start squealing over this.

 

[Fogdog]

Baaaaa baaaaaa...

the shearing station is to the left. Follow the other sheep.

No, dick

You stay and defend this. We're two adults having a conversation that actually matters. I'm asking you for clarification. For you to exit now is the same as you tossing the monopoly board and saying "Fuck this game!" when Buck hotels all his properties, which is ironic considering you didn't comment on the bank giving him double the cash to begin with, but all of a sudden it's unfair now when the game is almost over?

Truly, funny that..

OK, explain again to me why I should be upset? Are you going to take your elitist argument that Bernie should have won because the majority of voters were influenced by some collusion with the press? You, Ty and I weren't. You are superior and resistant while masses aren't. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Padawanbater2]

OK, explain again to me why I should be upset? Are you going to take your elitist argument that Bernie should have won because the majority of voters were influenced by some collusion with the press? You, Ty and I weren't. You are superior and resistant while masses aren't. Is that what you are saying?

Do you think Trump supporters know what's best for them?

Or do you think most of them have been fooled by a conman?

 

[Fogdog]

So it's okay if you think it was ineffective?

That's pretty sad. What's even sadder is that you actually seem to want me to rebut that steaming pile of nonsense.

And you still have not one shred of evidence it wasn't effective, and that the cover-up story- that it wasn't tampered with enough to matter, lol- is somehow credible, coming as it does from the very same folks who were up to their necks in committing said shenanigans in the first place.

You should be outraged; they shit on your vote. Instead you're passive. You're a sheep and don't deserve to live in a free society.

Go bleat in the corner while you wait to be shorn, yet again.

You are just like NLX. You expect me to prove a negative. Can you prove that more than 31% of voters in the Democratic party WERE affected by this action?

From what I've seen the kind of actions that can sway that large of a body of people are huge. Like 911 or Pearl Harbor or the Great Recession. Something huge, factual, tangible and affects everybody. But it's not up to me to prove a negative. You are the one making the accusation. Prove to me that this affected something greater than 31% of the voters. If you can't then it's just your opinion and my opinion and we don't agree.

 

[Fogdog]

Do you think Trump supporters know what's best for them?

Or do you think most of them have been fooled by a conman?

I most certainly think they are voting in their best interest. As with you, Trump's plans don't include suppressing white people. And they really like the fact that he says what they would like to say. So, yes, I think Trump's voters are voting for the person they want.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How are you deriving the 31% number?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I most certainly think they are voting in their best interest. As with you, Trump's plans don't include suppressing white people. And they really like the fact that he says what they would like to say. So, yes, I think Trump's voters are voting for the person they want.

That's not what I asked you, of course Trump supporters are voting for the person they want, if they weren't... why would they vote for Trump?...

I asked you if you think Trump supporters know what's best for them? Do you think Trump supporters are voting for the candidate that is in their best interest? Not the candidate they think is in their best interest, the candidate that is actually in their best interest

Do you believe that?

 

[Padawanbater2]

That's your opinion, my opinion is different. Since we can't prove either of our opinions, I don't see how this line of criticism is relevant

Here, you're essentially agreeing with me that the DNC cheated, we simply disagree on the degree of its effectiveness. I think what matters is they cheated at all, you think what matters is only if the cheating affected the election

Can you explain why it doesn't matter if the DNC cheated if it didn't affect the outcome of the election when you don't know if it did or not?

I don't see how that can be ruled out one way or the other since there isn't enough information to make that conclusion. I don't think the DNC would have destroyed their reputation and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would have risked her job for nothing, I think it's naive to believe it didn't affect the outcome of the election in any considerable way, but since I obviously can't prove that, I won't use that line of reasoning to make an argument, just stating my opinion

Clinton's involvement to whatever degree, again, is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding addressing my analogy to Monopoly - it wouldn't matter to the legitimacy of the game if Buck was aware of my behavior as the bank - so why would it matter to the legitimacy of the election if Clinton was aware of the DNCs behavior as a "neutral party" during the primary?

So what if someone donated the maximum legal amount to Clinton, then donated the maximum legal amount to the HVF under the presumption it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates that then got funnelled back to Clinton's campaign directly? Wouldn't that mean that same person donated the maximum legal amount to one political candidate twice?

I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that was actually illegal according to the FEC

I would appreciate an actual response to this post when you get a chance. No rush

 

[ttystikk]

OK, explain again to me why I should be upset? Are you going to take your elitist argument that Bernie should have won because the majority of voters were influenced by some collusion with the press? You, Ty and I weren't. You are superior and resistant while masses aren't. Is that what you are saying?

Baaaaa baaaa let the sheep dog herd you to the slaughterhouse.

Your arguments are losing intelligence.

I'm ridiculing them because as arguments, they're ridiculous!

Pad and I have said and are saying that any evidence of vote tampering should be treated as the criminal act that it is. Whether or not it altered the final outcome is IRRELEVANT.

Your second argument is just as bone headed; we aren't political elitists; there are plenty of those already, collectively known as the donor class. And they ARE more privileged than you, so why in the hell are you defending them?

The average American has been shown to be politically apathetic, to a great degree. Therefore @Padawanbater2 and I are outliers- Google it, it's a basic statistics term- simply by being interested in the process and its outcome. Honestly, I think we're simply more vocal than average. Neither of which makes us think we're in any way superior.

But if you judge us by how well we follow the herd mentality, then you're a sheep.

Baaaa baaaa and it's off to the slaughterhouse, mutton man. Follow that herd mentality and see where it gets you.

 

[ttystikk]

That's not what I asked you, of course Trump supporters are voting for the person they want, if they weren't... why would they vote for Trump?...

I asked you if you think Trump supporters know what's best for them? Do you think Trump supporters are voting for the candidate that is in their best interest? Not the candidate they think is in their best interest, the candidate that is actually in their best interest

Do you believe that?

This is a subtlety lost on sheep.

 

[ttystikk]

I would appreciate an actual response to this post when you get a chance. No rush

Baaaaaa baaaa

 

[Fogdog]

How are you deriving the 31% number?

3,775,437/12,029,699 = 31.38%

 

[ttystikk]

You are just like NLX. You expect me to prove a negative. Can you prove that more than 31% of voters in the Democratic party WERE affected by this action?

From what I've seen the kind of actions that can sway that large of a body of people are huge. Like 911 or Pearl Harbor or the Great Recession. Something huge, factual, tangible and affects everybody. But it's not up to me to prove a negative. You are the one making the accusation. Prove to me that this affected something greater than 31% of the voters. If you can't then it's just your opinion and my opinion and we don't agree.

Stop presenting your baseless opinion as fact. It isn't. The fact that you're apparently unable to tell the difference says everything about your political gullibility on the finer points of voter disenfranchisement.

You're making the argument that you only get your civil rights when it's not really important.

Baaaaaa baaaa

 

[Fogdog]

This is a subtlety lost on sheep.

That's not what I asked you, of course Trump supporters are voting for the person they want, if they weren't... why would they vote for Trump?...

I asked you if you think Trump supporters know what's best for them? Do you think Trump supporters are voting for the candidate that is in their best interest? Not the candidate they think is in their best interest, the candidate that is actually in their best interest

Do you believe that?

I think a Trump presidency would be a disaster. How Trump supporters get to where they decide to vote for Trump would have to be answered by a Trump supporter. I don't understand their decision but I accept that they have a right to their say. I had mine and I lost. Just like what happened with Hillary's defeat of Bernie.

I will object if the Trump wins a close election and somebody pulls shenanigans. It is already happening in southern states where election boards are culling black voters from voter lists. But this would be points shaving. If the election is by the same 31% margin in favor for Trump I will be amazed but accept that my side lost.