Yeah God forbid they write too many articles about this guy who tried to overturn an election, and claiming he wants to be a dictator on day 1, cozying up to dictators.
What do you mean “lead me in a particular direction”? Do you mean lead me to vote. Yeah, that’s exactly why I think it’s important. It’s motivates people to vote.
It makes people think that trump wants to be dictator, which is a standard talking point to scare people that are not paying attention. “BUT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE DICTATOR ON THE FIRST DAY!!!” It was joke.
Why are you so sure he doesn’t? He demands completely loyalty, he commonly and regularly uses a lot of the same rhetoric, he praises a lot of dictators, and (most importantly) he literally tried to overturn an election he lost, and fired up his followers so much that they violently attempt to block peaceful transition of power. The fact that someone might look at this and have an opinion that he wants to be a dictator is reasonable, and there is absolutely zero false or misleading about reporting that someone said this.
I dont know for sure he doesnt, but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
but dictators dont typically give up power once they have achieved it.
Well, he tried to hold onto official power, but the system held up against it. Thankfully, I’m not so sure it will again now that he has learned some lessons. Also, he hasn’t actually given up much of his power. He has used his political weight to influence republicans the past 4 years, even getting them to vote against a bill that would give them pretty much Republicans everything they wanted when it comes to immigration and border security, with only having to “give up” more funding to Ukraine. He still has a ton of power.
The problem with the article is that it gives air to a conspiracy theory and the only reason that do that is because it serves the purpose of trying to make trump lose.
Let’s be honest here. You just don’t want them reporting on people sharing their informed opinions about Trump because you are afraid the truth might hurt his chances of winning.
Thats not how dictatorships work, they dont have rules they are forced to follow. In the end all that is happening conspiracy theories that have zero evidence to back them up.
Yeah, we are discussing him wanting to be a dictator. He wants that to happen (hell, he’s even arguing in court that he should be held criminally responsible for any crimes he committed while in office). That’s what we’re trying to stop. We’re trying to stop his desires from coming true.
And there is plenty of evidence. We literally have him on tape trying to pressure a GA election official into “finding” enough votes for him to win. We have him still claiming, after being completely unable to produce any evidence that wasn’t laughed out of court, that the election was stolen from him. We have him inciting his followers into attacking the capital, and him doing nothing about it for an hour and a half, in an attempt to stop the transfer of power. This idea that there is no evidence to support Trump trying to hold onto power despite losing and claiming he is above the law is laughable.
You are literally doing exactly what I am talking about, you are believing the propaganda that insists he wants to be dictator when there is zero evidence of that. And even if he wanted to be a dictator it doesnt matter because he has followed the rules. You will interpret all the data to confirm your bias and not actually think about what it actually means. Its a big conspiracy theory you guys are a part of.
I ignored it because at best its circumstantial if not directly incorrect. Point to the best evidence you think there is and I can tell you why its not what you think it is.
Trump literally on tape telling a person to find votes and it’s “circumstantial.” You probably watch mob movies and think “Well, the boss didn’t actually tell him to kill the person!” lol
It was in the context of how he allegedly believed there was a bunch of illegal votes and he wanted them to fine X number of illegal votes so that he would have the most votes. The issue is that I dont think you have heard that side of the story to realize that they manufactured a controversy, unless there is more to that case that they have not told us.
Trump repeatedly told him to find votes, despite the guy repeatedly telling him that his concerns had been addressed and the count was good. He was clearly pressuring him to change the outcome. Any objective person can see that.
And lol at the idea that I’ve “haven’t heard that side before.” It’s the only thing that people dealing the cognitive dissonance of supporting Trump while at the same saying they hate corruption spout any time you bring it up. It’s equally as dumb as “Well, he just said ‘ice him’ so he probably just meant he wanted him cooled down.”
Clearly that meeting started out with them talking about voter fraud. I dont really care if trump was right or wrong, it was about what he intended, and it was clear he was wanting them to find fraudulent votes. You are not being objective if you still think it was about just getting votes. You can believe that, but that is not what the meeting was about, and to say otherwise is just to be wrong.
it was about what he intended, and it was clear he was wanting them to find fraudulent votes.
You clearly haven’t even listened to it or read a transcript. He isn’t asking him to find fraudulent votes, he’s saying (paraphrased) “we both know I won, so find just enough votes for me to win.” So you are literally guilty of what you are accusing me of; you haven’t even bothered to really be exposed to the opposing view. And it even if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that he was really just trying to make sure the count was good, the guy repeatedly tells him that his concerns have been addressed and the count is valid and accurate. And yet he persists, first pressuring, then intimidating, and then outright telling them to find votes. If you’re willing to see it, it’s obvious that his intent is for the guy to ignore the actual outcome and change it.
Of course I did, because I actually read it and listened to it. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you were wrong about what he was asking for. Why is that?
Uhhh, he said that NUMEROUS times before his whole “dictator on the first day”, and even then he walked it back AFTER being reminded that “hey, people aren’t quite ready for that”. How about the fact that his world-leader idols are almost all, to a man, dictators or wannabe dictators? Erdogan, Orban, Kim Jong-Un, Putin - this is a dude who said he most idolizes Mussolini and Andrew Jackson. One of his commonly-voiced complaints when he took office was that he couldn’t just unilaterally command that things be done, and according to aides, he had to constantly be reminded that things were illegal or beyond the scope of his office.
I dunno about you, but this sounds like the hallmarks of a man who would absolutely be a dictator, or close enough to it to not really matter.
Yeah you know what you’re so smart there guy on the Internet that thinks voting for a dude with 91 fucking criminal indictments for president is a good idea.
No other former president has even one criminal indictment.
There’s a reason why politicians typically resign when faced with even a single criminal indictment: they are too distracted by their legal problems to devote the time necessary to do the work of the people.
But somehow this guy who can’t even remember who the current president is will not be distracted by 91 criminal indictments? GTFOH
If it were one state, or one federal case, sure. Here’s the thing: he’s being prosecuted in multiple states, and in multiple federal courts for multiple different things. Generally, if you were trying to make a “kangaroo court” argument like Navalny had, then why go through all this rigmarole? If the government is so out to get Trump, why let him walk free and campaign and host rallies? Why wait 3 years to get the ball rolling on most of these cases? Why even bother coming up with plausible arguments and presenting them before a jury?
Why cant it be more than one state and the federal government?
Why wait 3 years to get the ball rolling on most of these cases?
Yes, exactly! Why wait until the middle of the campaign for president? Because the point of the case is so that he is damaged in running. Many people from jan 6th have already literally being tried, gone to prison, and are already out for a year before they even got a mugshot of trump.
A guy who just won the primary for one of the two major political parties in the country. With 91+ criminal indictments. Half a dozen losses in civil cases. A guy who’s so broke he just had to leverage most of his liquid assets.
Somehow that guy is still in the news. Because he’s insanely popular. Still. For some fucking reason.
Clinton absolutely crushed sanders. I’m not sure what you believe reality looks like. But if it ain’t that, then you should probably look elsewhere for that insult.
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn’t really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn’t as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
For example, if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2
Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, “whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary.”
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a “rigged” nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America’s democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the 2016 election.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn’t, at all, as you say, conclude that it “might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.”
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I’m going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.”
Brazils added of the deal: “[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
The Clintons outright took control of the DNC, hardly conductive to a fair primaries.
“I have an apology to make to @BernieSanders,” Phillips wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I had long dismissed his complaints about the rigged Democratic Party primary system.”
“But you know what? He was right. And I apologize, Bernie,” he added.
Other D’s ageee
After hacked emails published Monday by WikiLeaks appeared to reveal Brazile, during her time as a CNN commentator, giving advance notice to Clinton’s camp about a debate question,
They further gave unfair advantages to benefit Hillary
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[28] The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”[8]
The leaks show the DNC was weaponised against Bernie, they colluded together to find ways to smear his campaign, even suggesting antisemitism.
Etc etc etc. I’ve done this song and dance a million times with you people and if I was still on Reddit I’d go back and find my long perfectly sourced post that I’d trot out every time.
You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter” and I’d go on with my day not wasting any further time. So enjoy me randomly copying stuff from the first 3 links I clicked on Google, you can be a big boy and go search those exact quotes to find the corresponding pages I got them from if you want to read more.
tl;dr: Hacked emails and admissions from DNC chairpeople all point to the same thing, the DNC was rigged to give Hillary an unfair advantage over everyone else. Democracy was subverted through this bias, and as such we will never know how Bernie would’ve failed.
What we do know is that Hillary tried her best to game the system and lost. So it’s not like Bernie could have done any worse.
I guess I’m a proof is in the pudding guy. You’ve not provided any proof, just a lot of reason to be suspicious. This goes exactly like my debates with Trump supporters when it comes to the 2020 election “Well, I believe I have a lot of reasons to be suspicious, so it’s reasonable for me to call it rigged.” In both cases, the evidence does not back up the claim.
If the claim is that the DNC did some improper things during the 2016 democratic nomination and showed a bias against Sanders, I absolutely agree. If the claim is that they rigged it, sorry, my man, but that’s just as fictional as the MAGA claims of 2020 election fraud.
I’m mostly copy-pasting this from another post I made, where someone graciously gave me a link that pretty much completely dispels the myth of rigging the 2016 (ironically, they were providing the link to make it seem reasonable to believe it was rigged).
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, “whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary.”
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a “rigged” nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America’s democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the 2016 election.
You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter”
Don’t put words in my mouth, you’ll just make a fool of yourself. Although, I’m curious how you are going to spin and deny an actual analysis of the vote showing that it being rigged was extremely unlikely. Just like Trump supporters, you’ll just keep on going believing what you want to believe, facts be damned. You’re not the only one who has done this dance a million times. The difference between you is that I put the facts above my desire, and once they showed that it wasn’t true, I stopped believing it.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is “reasonable,” that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn’t rigged. Even going so far as to call it a “myth” that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have “faith” in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
I like how you’re pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn’t confirm your belief.
from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, “whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary.”
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a “rigged” nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America’s democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the 2016 election.
Yeah, clearly your “understanding” of their conclusion is based in reality. Why so dishonest? I don’t get it.
your accusation of dishonesty is bad faith. i'm engaging entirely with the facts here.
this paper doesn't even acknowledge the role the party finances and other resources played in the nomination process, tilting the results at the polls before many voters even had a chance to voice their preference.
Oh look at all that good hard evidence you are providing. Very convincing. It’s not just “forget your hard evidence. Look at my vague accusations that make me suspicious!”
Do you realize that I’ve had “debates” with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern? It’s funny how much my fellow Sanders supporters can sound like Trump supporters.
lol. I provided you are scientific paper studying the election. And it’s just posturing and rhetoric. I’m beginning to think this might just be trolling. If so, well done.
I apologize. I thought you had said something earlier about supporting Sanders, and when I’ve had this debate before it’s almost always been with another Sanders supporter.
But good on you on not having a horse in the race and still demonstrating confirmation bias.
What Brazile did find was a memorandum of agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she said.
“The thing, the only thing, I found – which I said, ‘I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient’ – was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” Brazile said on “This Week.”
Per your source. Brazile isn’t willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn’t invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn’t rigged. Saying it’s “dishonest” to point to this when someone claims she would agree it’s “rigged” doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I’m 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don’t start from a place of facts, the outcome won’t be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
The DNC (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Barbara Boxer, Donna Brazile and others) did.
Also the nefarious “counting and reporting” on sUpeRdELeGaTes before their votes had even been cast— thus trying to manipulate the public. It really left a very foul taste and I remember it well.
Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.
This is like going onto The_Donald and pointing out that he is a convicted rapist, and a fraud who tried to steal an election. . .and when inevitably when you get tons of downvotes someone saying “Looks like a lot of people don’t agree with your gaslighting.” lol
Clinton did not “cRuSh sAnDerS”
She won by 12 percentage points in the popular vote. Removing super delegates, she won 57% of the delegates.
It was never in doubt. She was the overwhelming favorite, right from the start. This didn’t stop me from holding out hope, BTW.
You might be upset with how it was run (or how it was reported? Which is funny because the media made it look like Sanders had a much better chance than he had. Remember, an actual race is more interesting than a blowout), but the simple fact is that Clinton was just a far more popular candidate than Sanders. Neither us thinks it should be the case, but that’s the general democrat voter. It’s time to move on and accept the facts, instead of posting in alternating caps as if that makes the facts go away.
You are rejecting the facts. What you are doing is showing what people do when they are dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pretending that Republicans are dumb for ignoring the evidence and believing the election was fraudulent, while trying to simultaneously ignoring the evidence that the 2016 nomination was rigged and that Clinton didn’t crush Sanders.
But, don’t worry, just like Trump supporters, you’re too far gone at this point and thus are impenetrable to facts. So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
>So I don’t expect you to come around. I’m just posting this so any other person who comes along will realize that your position doesn’t come from a place of rational thought.
any intellectually honest user who reads this thread can only conclude that the nomination was rigged.
Its important to remember that those cages were built during Obama’s administration. Nobody REEEEEEE’D about the cages until black jesus was out of office lmao.
I am one of those people and I’d like to explain the ideology because I think most people write or listen to little tid bits on the internet and never really understand where we are coming from.
To you these sides seem vastly different in the same way that any two people are so, so different and unique. However those same two people are biologically 99% similar. A difference in perspective causes this misunderstanding.
In my country it is compulsory to vote and I gladly take the fine every few years because I reject the Westminster system, that is to say I reject bicameral representative government. So when I say they are the same it is because from my perspective they are the same, the world will continue on 99% the same 99% of the time whoever wins regardless of how people freak out about it.
South Park has a startlingly appropriate episode to describe this situation; what to do when faced with the choice between a douche and a turd? The only moral answer is do not vote and protest the system, hope enough others can participate with you and hope your ideology can gain enough traction to prevent any government from attaining a legitimate mandate to govern.
Most who disagree only want you to vote for their guy.
Unless you can understand the nuance and complexity of American politics, understand and experience what it’s been like under both administrations-
You’re NOT one of those people. In fact- you’re exempt from having any relevant say in the issue just as much as I would be as an American citizen to suggesting who you should vote for in whatever country you live in.
If your opinion mattered in the issue, I’d be glad to explain. But it doesn’t. So I won’t.
And the whole: “aRe yOu oKaY bUd?” concern-troll is tired and worn out now. Maybe the news just hasn’t gotten to you folk just yet. But look at that! You get to be on the cutting edge of new trends and let them all know!
There’s SO many, but this was probably my favorite Weekend Update joke:
In a brilliant move during closing arguments, Simpson attorney Johnnie Cochran put on the knit cap prosecutors say O.J. wore the night he committed the murders. Although O.J. may have hurt his case when he suddenly blurted out ‘Hey, hey, easy with that, that’s my lucky stabbing hat!’
And yet, more than 40% of Hungarian voters want to vote for Orbán again. Under his corrupt electoral system, that will be again a 2/3 supermajority. From a Hungarian: The prevailing belief here is “Orbán lies and sucks, but never again for Gyurcsány” or “Everyone sucks, Fidesz is the least bad” or even “There’s no better alternative”. This fuck should be voted out in 2026, but we know he won’t.
From the state’s founding, Hungary is a Western country, which never wants to be part of the East on purpose. […] Eastern politics can’t tolerate autonomy, can’t tolerate independence, and can’t tolerate freedom. It eliminates the defences defending a human’s independence. […] It makes one vulnerable; if need be, it intimidates. […] Since the East stepped foot in Hungary, freedom-loving Hungarians like us always wanted the same: to liberate ourselves from their withering hugs, and to remove their domestic guards. […] Our wish always was this: we wanted a Western democracy which builds on Christian culture, and on the ideals of freedom, equality, and fraternity. We always fought against the faux-democracy […]
– Viktor Orbán, 2007, in a segment to the young people in Hungary.
Add comment