DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, repeatedly leaked debate questions to Clinton campaign

[potroastV2]

Do you still have that duster and those boots (LOLOL) that you were wearing in the klan rally pics?

Duster.

That's not what it's called, just ask any young girl ...

Those are culottes!

 

[Fogdog]

On weed you didn't grow. You're maybe just not very good at shit.

he offered me some but I wasn't interested. No way.

 

[Fogdog]

So here's a really good explanation of the standard millennial mindset towards voting for Hillary Clinton. Louis CK on Conan criticizing millennials not voting for Clinton, Kyle's response begins at 2:20

dammit. Another video of one person where the poster claims it represents everybody. You are better than this, or I thought you were. That video represents that person. Not you, not me not the whole group voting for Clinton.

 

[Fogdog]

The pivot to whether or not the verified cheating swayed the election enough to make a difference is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. You and @Fogdog were some of Clinton's biggest supporters in the 'DNC Email Leak' and 'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning' threads, and I should add @Unclebaldrick to that list as I'd like to get his opinion on this too

After everything that has come to light; Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning in shame after pressure from the democratic base over unethical behavior during the democratic primary, then being hired to the Clinton campaign on the same day, evidence DWS and the Clinton campaign had direct contact with and influenced multiple mainstream journalists for their mutual benefit, evidence of Donna Brazile feeding multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of time in order to influence the outcome, do you still believe the 2016 democratic primary was, as Bill O'Reilly would say, fair and balanced? Do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton won fair and square?

So first when it was DWS, the argument you used was basically that the DNC bylaws were just guidelines, not actual laws, and that the leadership of the DNC breaking them wasn't actually illegal, so pretty much just get over it and accept Clinton as the nominee. But how can you claim Clinton won a fair election with all this evidence standing up against that idea? I mean, what do you say to the direct evidence of Clinton being fed multiple questions by Brazile, then being hired as the DNC chair after? Do you think that's just some giant coincidence?

This is disappointing

I think this, as well as the other evidence that has come out, points to direct corruption within the government. The evidence proves that the Clinton campaign colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media in order to both push a positive narrative and gain any and every advantage to winning the nomination against a candidate that was surging in popularity.

I think the big picture is that we're left with two candidates that no one really likes that we just have to basically put up with because we're made to believe the other one is so much worse, and if they get elected, the world as we know it will cease to exist. I Think probably more than anything this election has shown us how obsolete and outdated our executive electoral process has become, and how in dire a need of change it is. Or maybe how naive I actually was to believe that righteousness would win the day, all that has to happen is for good people to believe it.. I used to think all you had to do was convince people of the truth for them to accept it..

'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning"? This is a loaded question. Not worth responding to.

I think you still have piles over Bernie's unfair position during the primary. I don't disagree that he was in a weak position, but unfair? Bernie was practically unknown going into the primary and Clinton had been campaigning for 25 years. Was that an unfair advantage? Do you claim that Bernie should have received a handicap because he was unknown and Clinton was well known?

Your assertion that there was collusion between the media and Clinton is overblown. There were a few people who were clearly not objective regarding Sanders and Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of receiving some debate questions.

I don't disagree that Clinton had relationships with some of the members of the media that crossed the line in terms of our expectations for unbiased reporting.

From this you extrapolate that Bernie lost "because media collusion". It's here that I disagree. I ask you why didn't Bernie build a better ground game in the south and the west? He was completely invisible to southern state voters when they held their primaries. When he lost there in big numbers it gave Clinton an advantage that she never lost. Do you really think that a few debate questions "leaked" to Clinton was more important than getting out to those states, building an organization there and convincing voters in those states that Bernie was better than Clinton? I don't think so. I think that is a ridiculous assertion.

Regarding media bias, evidence points in the opposite direction of your assertion. Bernie received much more positive media reporting than did Clinton. So, where is the proof that the primary was "stolen" from Bernie due to media bias? wikileaks? Why doesn't this "bias" show up in the reporting? I'm not claiming collusion with the Sanders campaign, I'm just pointing out that your claim of rigged election due to media bias is baseless.

Hillary Clinton had an advantage at the beginning of the election. She had offices and organizations in place in the south when they were needed where Bernie did not have nearly the same presence. She destroyed Bernie there and then. It wasn't a "fair" game in that they did not start at the same place. The exact obstacle presented itself to Obama. In that case he overcame the disadvantage in a tough race. Bernie did not.

 

[schuylaar]

You are right.

Fixed!

This one is too bleached out.

 

[spandy]

This one is too bleached out.

lol, one more time...

 

[schuylaar]

lol, one more time...

Acceptable

 

[schuylaar]

'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning"? This is a loaded question. Not worth responding to.

I think you still have piles over Bernie's unfair position during the primary. I don't disagree that he was in a weak position, but unfair? Bernie was practically unknown going into the primary and Clinton had been campaigning for 25 years. Was that an unfair advantage? Do you claim that Bernie should have received a handicap because he was unknown and Clinton was well known?

Your assertion that there was collusion between the media and Clinton is overblown. There were a few people who were clearly not objective regarding Sanders and Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of receiving some debate questions.

I don't disagree that Clinton had relationships with some of the members of the media that crossed the line in terms of our expectations for unbiased reporting.

From this you extrapolate that Bernie lost "because media collusion". It's here that I disagree. I ask you why didn't Bernie build a better ground game in the south and the west? He was completely invisible to southern state voters when they held their primaries. When he lost there in big numbers it gave Clinton an advantage that she never lost. Do you really think that a few debate questions "leaked" to Clinton was more important than getting out to those states, building an organization there and convincing voters in those states that Bernie was better than Clinton? I don't think so. I think that is a ridiculous assertion.

Regarding media bias, evidence points in the opposite direction of your assertion. Bernie received much more positive media reporting than did Clinton. So, where is the proof that the primary was "stolen" from Bernie due to media bias? wikileaks? Why doesn't this "bias" show up in the reporting? I'm not claiming collusion with the Sanders campaign, I'm just pointing out that your claim of rigged election due to media bias is baseless.

Hillary Clinton had an advantage at the beginning of the election. She had offices and organizations in place in the south when they were needed where Bernie did not have nearly the same presence. She destroyed Bernie there and then. It wasn't a "fair" game in that they did not start at the same place. The exact obstacle presented itself to Obama. In that case he overcame the disadvantage in a tough race. Bernie did not.

<sigh, Schuylaar rolls up her sleeves>

 

[Fogdog]

<sigh, Schuylaar rolls up her sleeves>

I know, I opened a can of worms here. Not trying to pick a fight, and I know it's a sore point. It's just that I can't agree with the "rigged" assertion. Does not mean that I don't agree with most of what you and Paddy say.

 

[Padawanbater2]

dammit. Another video of one person where the poster claims it represents everybody. You are better than this, or I thought you were. That video represents that person. Not you, not me not the whole group voting for Clinton.

I said 'the standard millennial mindset', which the polling numbers attribute to in regards to a Hillary Clinton administration. I didn't say 'everybody'

'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning"? This is a loaded question. Not worth responding to.

I think you still have piles over Bernie's unfair position during the primary. I don't disagree that he was in a weak position, but unfair? Bernie was practically unknown going into the primary and Clinton had been campaigning for 25 years. Was that an unfair advantage? Do you claim that Bernie should have received a handicap because he was unknown and Clinton was well known?

I couldn't give an e-fuck less about his 'starting position', that's the name of the game, son. You're famous for 50 years before your campaign and I'm an up and comer trying to beat you, your advantage, no foul, no collusion, no cheating, fair game. It's my job to make myself a better viable candidate than you that the voters want to vote for. But that's not what happened.

Clinton started out with a gigantic advantage as her name recognition resonated with virtually the entire country. I AM 100% OK WITH THAT. The problem arises when the organization that is supposed to remain neutral [the DNC], doesn't. We have proof through Wikileaks that the DNC did not remain neutral as early as January, 2015, before Sanders even entered the race. I am honestly not sure why or how you can dispute this. We have evidence DWS colluded with MSNBC,then resigned as DNC chair in shame when it came to light. We have evidence Donna Brazile leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. We have evidence of the Clinton campaign inviting (and them attending) multiple mainstream journalists to dinner, a private event that skews all possible objectivity, and there's evidence of election fraud taking place in multiple counties in New York that would have likely voted Sanders, somewhere in the realm of 120,000 votes, who were disenfranchised by the democratic party, which has also led to two different people being fired for the disaster.

If you deny the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and both colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media specifically to ensure every advantage that collectively added up to Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, you're simply not qualified to talk about American politics because you clearly do not understand them.

Your assertion that there was collusion between the media and Clinton is overblown. There were a few people who were clearly not objective regarding Sanders and Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of receiving some debate questions.

How is my assertion overblown when you admit she was the beneficiary of receiving debate questions?

Members of the mainstream media gave the Clinton campaign almost verbatim debate questions she would be required to answer during the debate with Sanders, she was able to prepare her answer ahead of time while Sanders wasn't.

It's like you're claiming red is blue.. You admit she cheated, but say it's 'overblown'. I sincerely do not understand

I don't disagree that Clinton had relationships with some of the members of the media that crossed the line in terms of our expectations for unbiased reporting.

From this you extrapolate that Bernie lost "because media collusion".

I'm not claiming Sanders lost because of media collusion because I obviously don't know if that's why he lost. I'm claiming that the organization that claims impartiality [the DNC] was not impartial during the 2016 democratic primary. This shows obvious corruption any democracy loving American should be aware and wary of. This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately. You yourself have already acknowledged the impartiality of the DNC in favor of Clinton, you can't then reasonably claim the election was legitimate

What bothers me is that none of this bothers you.. democracy was subverted, those in control have further secured their control and Hillary Clinton supporters have shown their true colors; Principles don't matter, only winning matters because what I believe matters the most! This should truly come in handy the next time a republican takes office..

Do you really think that a few debate questions "leaked" to Clinton...

I really don't care. What I DO care about is that debate questions were leaked to the Clinton campaign. As should you, as should anybody who supports democracy.

Regarding media bias, evidence points in the opposite direction of your assertion. Bernie received much more positive media reporting than did Clinton.

Interesting claim, got any proof?

So, where is the proof that the primary was "stolen" from Bernie due to media bias? wikileaks? Why doesn't this "bias" show up in the reporting? I'm not claiming collusion with the Sanders campaign, I'm just pointing out that your claim of rigged election due to media bias is baseless.

So, what, Wikileaks is all just bullshit? Some right-wing propaganda machine, "Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi!!!"? How can you possibly claim any of the claims I've made are 'baseless'? I've shown you direct evidence of every claim that I've made, none of which have even attempted to be refuted.

Hillary Clinton had an advantage at the beginning of the election. She had offices and organizations in place in the south when they were needed where Bernie did not have nearly the same presence. She destroyed Bernie there and then. It wasn't a "fair" game in that they did not start at the same place. The exact obstacle presented itself to Obama. In that case he overcame the disadvantage in a tough race. Bernie did not.

Total bullshit. Sanders didn't win the south because, obviously, even southern democrats are more moderate than liberals. Couple that with the Clinton campaign's half decade long power grab since 2008, including media collusion, and you have exactly what we saw take place; a popular candidate winning almost half the electoral vote despite all the bullshit tricks pulled against him.

You know what 46% means to me?

It means we're fucking winning.

46%, despite all the bullshit. Despite all the lying and cheating and manipulating and paying off and buying and blatant corruption. People are starting to see through it all

 

[Fogdog]

I said 'the standard millennial mindset', which the polling numbers attribute to in regards to a Hillary Clinton administration. I didn't say 'everybody'

I couldn't give an e-fuck less about his 'starting position', that's the name of the game, son. You're famous for 50 years before your campaign and I'm an up and comer trying to beat you, your advantage, no foul, no collusion, no cheating, fair game. It's my job to make myself a better viable candidate than you that the voters want to vote for. But that's not what happened.

Clinton started out with a gigantic advantage as her name recognition resonated with virtually the entire country. I AM 100% OK WITH THAT. The problem arises when the organization that is supposed to remain neutral [the DNC], doesn't. We have proof through Wikileaks that the DNC did not remain neutral as early as January, 2015, before Sanders even entered the race. I am honestly not sure why or how you can dispute this. We have evidence DWS colluded with MSNBC,then resigned as DNC chair in shame when it came to light. We have evidence Donna Brazile leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. We have evidence of the Clinton campaign inviting (and them attending) multiple mainstream journalists to dinner, a private event that skews all possible objectivity, and there's evidence of election fraud taking place in multiple counties in New York that would have likely voted Sanders, somewhere in the realm of 120,000 votes, who were disenfranchised by the democratic party, which has also led to two different people being fired for the disaster.

If you deny the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and both colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media specifically to ensure every advantage that collectively added up to Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, you're simply not qualified to talk about American politics because you clearly do not understand them.

How is my assertion overblown when you admit she was the beneficiary of receiving debate questions?

Members of the mainstream media gave the Clinton campaign almost verbatim debate questions she would be required to answer during the debate with Sanders, she was able to prepare her answer ahead of time while Sanders wasn't.

It's like you're claiming red is blue.. You admit she cheated, but say it's 'overblown'. I sincerely do not understand


I'm not claiming Sanders lost because of media collusion because I obviously don't know if that's why he lost. I'm claiming that the organization that claims impartiality [the DNC] was not impartial during the 2016 democratic primary. This shows obvious corruption any democracy loving American should be aware and wary of. This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately. You yourself have already acknowledged the impartiality of the DNC in favor of Clinton, you can't then reasonably claim the election was legitimate

What bothers me is that none of this bothers you.. democracy was subverted, those in control have further secured their control and Hillary Clinton supporters have shown their true colors; Principles don't matter, only winning matters because what I believe matters the most! This should truly come in handy the next time a republican takes office..

I really don't care. What I DO care about is that debate questions were leaked to the Clinton campaign. As should you, as should anybody who supports democracy.

Interesting claim, got any proof?

So, what, Wikileaks is all just bullshit? Some right-wing propaganda machine, "Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi!!!"? How can you possibly claim any of the claims I've made are 'baseless'? I've shown you direct evidence of every claim that I've made, none of which have even attempted to be refuted.

Total bullshit. Sanders didn't win the south because, obviously, even southern democrats are more moderate than liberals. Couple that with the Clinton campaign's half decade long power grab since 2008, including media collusion, and you have exactly what we saw take place; a popular candidate winning almost half the electoral vote despite all the bullshit tricks pulled against him.

You know what 46% means to me?

It means we're fucking winning.

46%, despite all the bullshit. Despite all the lying and cheating and manipulating and paying off and buying and blatant corruption. People are starting to see through it all

OK. Soooo, how about those Cubs?

 

[UncleBuck]

I said 'the standard millennial mindset', which the polling numbers attribute to in regards to a Hillary Clinton administration. I didn't say 'everybody'

I couldn't give an e-fuck less about his 'starting position', that's the name of the game, son. You're famous for 50 years before your campaign and I'm an up and comer trying to beat you, your advantage, no foul, no collusion, no cheating, fair game. It's my job to make myself a better viable candidate than you that the voters want to vote for. But that's not what happened.

Clinton started out with a gigantic advantage as her name recognition resonated with virtually the entire country. I AM 100% OK WITH THAT. The problem arises when the organization that is supposed to remain neutral [the DNC], doesn't. We have proof through Wikileaks that the DNC did not remain neutral as early as January, 2015, before Sanders even entered the race. I am honestly not sure why or how you can dispute this. We have evidence DWS colluded with MSNBC,then resigned as DNC chair in shame when it came to light. We have evidence Donna Brazile leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. We have evidence of the Clinton campaign inviting (and them attending) multiple mainstream journalists to dinner, a private event that skews all possible objectivity, and there's evidence of election fraud taking place in multiple counties in New York that would have likely voted Sanders, somewhere in the realm of 120,000 votes, who were disenfranchised by the democratic party, which has also led to two different people being fired for the disaster.

If you deny the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and both colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media specifically to ensure every advantage that collectively added up to Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, you're simply not qualified to talk about American politics because you clearly do not understand them.

How is my assertion overblown when you admit she was the beneficiary of receiving debate questions?

Members of the mainstream media gave the Clinton campaign almost verbatim debate questions she would be required to answer during the debate with Sanders, she was able to prepare her answer ahead of time while Sanders wasn't.

It's like you're claiming red is blue.. You admit she cheated, but say it's 'overblown'. I sincerely do not understand


I'm not claiming Sanders lost because of media collusion because I obviously don't know if that's why he lost. I'm claiming that the organization that claims impartiality [the DNC] was not impartial during the 2016 democratic primary. This shows obvious corruption any democracy loving American should be aware and wary of. This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately. You yourself have already acknowledged the impartiality of the DNC in favor of Clinton, you can't then reasonably claim the election was legitimate

What bothers me is that none of this bothers you.. democracy was subverted, those in control have further secured their control and Hillary Clinton supporters have shown their true colors; Principles don't matter, only winning matters because what I believe matters the most! This should truly come in handy the next time a republican takes office..

I really don't care. What I DO care about is that debate questions were leaked to the Clinton campaign. As should you, as should anybody who supports democracy.

Interesting claim, got any proof?

So, what, Wikileaks is all just bullshit? Some right-wing propaganda machine, "Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi!!!"? How can you possibly claim any of the claims I've made are 'baseless'? I've shown you direct evidence of every claim that I've made, none of which have even attempted to be refuted.

Total bullshit. Sanders didn't win the south because, obviously, even southern democrats are more moderate than liberals. Couple that with the Clinton campaign's half decade long power grab since 2008, including media collusion, and you have exactly what we saw take place; a popular candidate winning almost half the electoral vote despite all the bullshit tricks pulled against him.

You know what 46% means to me?

It means we're fucking winning.

46%, despite all the bullshit. Despite all the lying and cheating and manipulating and paying off and buying and blatant corruption. People are starting to see through it all

you must have been pretty high when you wrote that.

honest question: if you were going into a democratic primary debate, would you, or would you not plan out a response to questions about the death penalty and the flint water crisis?

 

[ttystikk]

OK. Soooo, how about those Cubs?

He's said what I've said what @schuylaar said and many others... with specific examples and evidence.

Our democracy isn't. Our candidates are chosen for us by a completely corrupt scheme.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

 

[Padawanbater2]

you must have been pretty high when you wrote that.

honest question: if you were going into a democratic primary debate, would you, or would you not plan out a response to questions about the death penalty and the flint water crisis?

The Clinton campaign was fed direct questions to the debate

The Sanders campaign wasn't

 

[UncleBuck]

The Clinton campaign was fed direct questions to the debate

The Sanders campaign wasn't

the clinton campaign, by your own citation, was fed possible questions.

the clinton campaign studied for all possible questions, as did the sanders campaign.

this is not scandal or corruption in any way whatsoever. bernie and hillary both studied all the possible questions, just like you or i would and trump didn't.

the questions that come up in a debate are ridiculously predictable. you are being a fucking baby right now.

i dub thee PadawanNader.

 

[Lord Kanti]

Your plane is crashing and only one of two people say they can land it; the lying crook who has flight experience or the idiot liar psychopath pervert who says he has the flight experience?



She still is the better option.

she's just stammering to buy enough time to swipe the parachute.

 

[Lord Kanti]

The pivot to whether or not the verified cheating swayed the election enough to make a difference is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. You and @Fogdog were some of Clinton's biggest supporters in the 'DNC Email Leak' and 'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning' threads, and I should add @Unclebaldrick to that list as I'd like to get his opinion on this too

After everything that has come to light; Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning in shame after pressure from the democratic base over unethical behavior during the democratic primary, then being hired to the Clinton campaign on the same day, evidence DWS and the Clinton campaign had direct contact with and influenced multiple mainstream journalists for their mutual benefit, evidence of Donna Brazile feeding multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of time in order to influence the outcome, do you still believe the 2016 democratic primary was, as Bill O'Reilly would say, fair and balanced? Do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton won fair and square?

So first when it was DWS, the argument you used was basically that the DNC bylaws were just guidelines, not actual laws, and that the leadership of the DNC breaking them wasn't actually illegal, so pretty much just get over it and accept Clinton as the nominee. But how can you claim Clinton won a fair election with all this evidence standing up against that idea? I mean, what do you say to the direct evidence of Clinton being fed multiple questions by Brazile, then being hired as the DNC chair after? Do you think that's just some giant coincidence?

This is disappointing

I think this, as well as the other evidence that has come out, points to direct corruption within the government. The evidence proves that the Clinton campaign colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media in order to both push a positive narrative and gain any and every advantage to winning the nomination against a candidate that was surging in popularity.

I think the big picture is that we're left with two candidates that no one really likes that we just have to basically put up with because we're made to believe the other one is so much worse, and if they get elected, the world as we know it will cease to exist. I Think probably more than anything this election has shown us how obsolete and outdated our executive electoral process has become, and how in dire a need of change it is. Or maybe how naive I actually was to believe that righteousness would win the day, all that has to happen is for good people to believe it.. I used to think all you had to do was convince people of the truth for them to accept it..

Don't forget how she paid off Bernie for his support.

Your only feasible options right now are Trump and Hillary...

 

[SneekyNinja]

Don't forget how she paid off Bernie for his support.

Your only feasible options right now are Trump and Hillary...

Sanders and Hillary out campaigning together yesterday.

Sanders has conceded, he'd be embarrassed to see his supporters have turned into such brain dead cucks.

 

[schuylaar]

she's just stammering to buy enough time to swipe the parachute.

Actually, that was @ttystikk's brilliance

 

[schuylaar]

I said 'the standard millennial mindset', which the polling numbers attribute to in regards to a Hillary Clinton administration. I didn't say 'everybody'

I couldn't give an e-fuck less about his 'starting position', that's the name of the game, son. You're famous for 50 years before your campaign and I'm an up and comer trying to beat you, your advantage, no foul, no collusion, no cheating, fair game. It's my job to make myself a better viable candidate than you that the voters want to vote for. But that's not what happened.

Clinton started out with a gigantic advantage as her name recognition resonated with virtually the entire country. I AM 100% OK WITH THAT. The problem arises when the organization that is supposed to remain neutral [the DNC], doesn't. We have proof through Wikileaks that the DNC did not remain neutral as early as January, 2015, before Sanders even entered the race. I am honestly not sure why or how you can dispute this. We have evidence DWS colluded with MSNBC,then resigned as DNC chair in shame when it came to light. We have evidence Donna Brazile leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. We have evidence of the Clinton campaign inviting (and them attending) multiple mainstream journalists to dinner, a private event that skews all possible objectivity, and there's evidence of election fraud taking place in multiple counties in New York that would have likely voted Sanders, somewhere in the realm of 120,000 votes, who were disenfranchised by the democratic party, which has also led to two different people being fired for the disaster.

If you deny the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and both colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media specifically to ensure every advantage that collectively added up to Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, you're simply not qualified to talk about American politics because you clearly do not understand them.

How is my assertion overblown when you admit she was the beneficiary of receiving debate questions?

Members of the mainstream media gave the Clinton campaign almost verbatim debate questions she would be required to answer during the debate with Sanders, she was able to prepare her answer ahead of time while Sanders wasn't.

It's like you're claiming red is blue.. You admit she cheated, but say it's 'overblown'. I sincerely do not understand


I'm not claiming Sanders lost because of media collusion because I obviously don't know if that's why he lost. I'm claiming that the organization that claims impartiality [the DNC] was not impartial during the 2016 democratic primary. This shows obvious corruption any democracy loving American should be aware and wary of. This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately. You yourself have already acknowledged the impartiality of the DNC in favor of Clinton, you can't then reasonably claim the election was legitimate

What bothers me is that none of this bothers you.. democracy was subverted, those in control have further secured their control and Hillary Clinton supporters have shown their true colors; Principles don't matter, only winning matters because what I believe matters the most! This should truly come in handy the next time a republican takes office..

I really don't care. What I DO care about is that debate questions were leaked to the Clinton campaign. As should you, as should anybody who supports democracy.

Interesting claim, got any proof?

So, what, Wikileaks is all just bullshit? Some right-wing propaganda machine, "Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi!!!"? How can you possibly claim any of the claims I've made are 'baseless'? I've shown you direct evidence of every claim that I've made, none of which have even attempted to be refuted.

Total bullshit. Sanders didn't win the south because, obviously, even southern democrats are more moderate than liberals. Couple that with the Clinton campaign's half decade long power grab since 2008, including media collusion, and you have exactly what we saw take place; a popular candidate winning almost half the electoral vote despite all the bullshit tricks pulled against him.

You know what 46% means to me?

It means we're fucking winning.

46%, despite all the bullshit. Despite all the lying and cheating and manipulating and paying off and buying and blatant corruption. People are starting to see through it all

+rep