Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep. I agree, but some hear the aforementioned figurehead say "rigged" and they automatically assume it means the exact same as manipulated votes.


Sometimes you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to prevent your position from falling upon deaf ears. I've found that being the smartest guy in the room isn't always the best approach; sometimes it's more effective to be an idiot.

I can't believe that people are that stupid, and I've certainly never thought or said that I'm the smartest guy in the room.

This is a very basic issue in this thread. Donna Brasille is selling a book. She has made incendiary comments that are likely somewhat true. I do not doubt for a second that the DNC was and has been mismanaged. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton's campaign bailed them out. I have no doubt that enabled her to basically "assume control" of the Democratic Party apparatus. I have no doubt that DNC attorney's argued in court as one member keeps incessantly posting, nor do I have any doubt that professional politicians are psychotic liars.

BUT

It is a simple straightforward fact that Bernie Sanders had the same opportunities to stand before Americans who were Democrats and make his case. He wasn't cut out of any debate, or any public appearance. He was on the ballot in the Primaries and Caucuses. He got a lot of votes, but he didn't get the majority needed to defeat Clinton he lost fair and square.

There is zero evidence to the contrary. This fact isn't about a) being a closet Democrat or b) loving Hillary Clinton or c) denying what DNC attorney's said.

There is no evidence, zero, that any Primary or Caucus result was altered.

If this absurdity really arises because folks are simply too stupid to understand that the word "rigged" has different contexts and meanings when used by different people for different purposes ... then I am truly wasting my time and effort. I certainly hope it's just rank partisanship.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Sometimes you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to prevent your position from falling upon deaf ears. I've found that being the smartest guy in the room isn't always the best approach; sometimes it's more effective to be an idiot.

This is only a partial truth, and only relevant if you are trying to make your point to really stupid people and lets face it, that is a pointless endeavour is it not ?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.

I do believe he was registered as a Democrat in order to run as a Democrat in the primaries.
That would have made him a Democrat while he maintained that status.

Bernie has always been a Democrat. He just tries to label himself an Independent because he doesn't want to be labeled a Democrat, for obvious reasons.

Why are people only believing this now? Lol. Tell us things we didn't know.

Kudos Hillary, you spared us from that idiot Sanders.

so despite no support and nobody voting for him bernie should have won, trump worshipper logic right there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you understand how those delegates get awarded?

I will say that one positive note in all this, for me, is that I get to remind so many of the liars and sycophants that every word pronounced by Donna Brasille and Elizabeth Warren in the future are sacrosanct and beyond question.

I've realized that the problem here really is a lack of the ability to think critically.

First of all, Elizabeth Warren's comment toward "rigging" was a simple "yes" to a question.

Donna Brasille is promoting her new book.

The fact remains that there is ZERO evidence that the 2016 Democratic Primaries and Caucuses were not completely fair and aboveboard.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you understand how those delegates get awarded?

Are you speaking of Primaries or Caucuses?

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I wasn't suggesting that you positioned yourself to being the "smartest guy in the room", I was merely making a contrast statement. Meaning sometimes ONE (an individual) can actually be the smartest guy in the room, but just because that's true, doesn't mean it will be effective in the ability to make a point, that's all I meant.

originally posted by: cinerama
so despite no support and nobody voting for him bernie should have won, trump worshipper logic right there.

A majority of third party voters agree the DNC played a huge role in getting her the not, but keep blaming Trump supporters..

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: alphabetaone

Sometimes you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to prevent your position from falling upon deaf ears. I've found that being the smartest guy in the room isn't always the best approach; sometimes it's more effective to be an idiot.

This is only a partial truth, and only relevant if you are trying to make your point to really stupid people and lets face it, that is a pointless endeavour is it not ?

I don't agree that it only applies to making a point with really stupid people. Not everyone processes information in the same way or in the same amount of time...being ignorant or slow is nowhere near the same as being "really stupid". My opinion on that was not one meant to denigrate anyone or even any particular group, just an opinion based upon years of watching people and their reactions or sometimes lack of reaction due to processing of what they've been told.

It's obvious what happened. "They" wanted Trump to win and knew he couldn't beat Bernie. Since "they" control everything they allowed the RNC to dictate what happened in the DNC, thus accomplishing their goals of getting Trump in the White House and dividing us Americans. Wake up people.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I wasn't suggesting that you positioned yourself to being the "smartest guy in the room", I was merely making a contrast statement. Meaning sometimes ONE (an individual) can actually be the smartest guy in the room, but just because that's true, doesn't mean it will be effective in the ability to make a point, that's all I meant.

I understand and appreciated your comments. I realized that my arguments are basically being countered by ignorance and/or dishonesty, but that your notation, that some are simplistically focusing on a generic application of the word "rigged" ... helped make the situation clear.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Both, please explain how you think it works.

I don't see how Bernie could have won. The Bible belt would have never voted for him.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Both, please explain how you think it works.

It works differently in each State's party. I'd be glad to talk about the way Georgia's Democrats did it in the 2016 election if you would like. Several different divisions of delegates were assigned: state-wide, Congressional district, party leadership etc. Georgia had 117 delegates and 15 superdelegates. Clinton and Sanders had delegates assigned based on their performance in the popular vote with party leaders and superdelegates voting as they chose.

Do you have a claim to make? Something along the lines of the way the Democratic party assigns delegates is innately unfair? Something like that? Just make it; don't be coy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I sort of half-way agree with you on this, Gryph.

Bernie is bound to have known what was going on, at least, partially.

He wimped out or was bought out, imo, because, quite simply put, he didn't fight back. He didn't expose the Democrat Machine for what it is....dishonest, underhanded, theiving, lying, stealing, money-laundering, mafioso-like criminal enterprise.

He caved....then bought a nice lake house for a third home.