Democracy is doomed. but it's not because of people like me; it's you. Specifically, your inability to comprehend the basic mechanics of government.
You repeatedly fail to engage the basic concept: Bernie Sanders was not and is not a Democrat. You expected equal access from a private organization as if it were a state entity; you ignored the capture of state entities by Republican operatives. You disparaged the people who got things done because they were complicit with the system and then were surprised when the system did not bend to your will.
Yes, Dems do shitty things. All successful parties do. The point is that they do less shitty things than the other choice. You wanted someone who would never do anything shitty, and instead got someone who would never do anything at all because he couldn't even win a primary.
Also, Bernie Sanders is a shitty candidate. His "socialism" wouldn't even get him into Right-wing politics here in Australia. His wife is dirty, he doesn't have a detailed plan, and he hasn't accomplished jack shit in his 30 years.
Well no. Bernie would have had to have been a *better* candidate than Clinton because the odds were stacked against him with some help from the DNC. Ya know, if you and others can’t be honest about the shitty things the Dems do then the Dems are doomed. Actually so is democracy in general.
Yes, the organization favored one candidate over another. It was not a total fix, in that the other candidate could have won, if only he had been a good enough candidate (like Barack Obama did). But definitely the Democratic party made it harder for the non-Democratic candidate to win the Democratic primary.
There is a fact here that you seem utterly oblivious to. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He wasn't then and he isn't now. So perhaps you could explain just how much the Democratic party owes some rando who walks in off the street and expects to get a promotion over the woman who worked for 30 years to earn it, just because he's got a white penis.
That you think Bernie Sanders was entitled to seize the Democratic party assets for his own use really spells out exactly what it is we all hate about Berniebots: it's that immense sense of entitlement. You didn't plant the seeds, you didn't harvest the crop, you didn't knead the dough, you didn't bake the bread - but by Dog you thought you should get the whole loaf.
Well yeah. That’s what “rigging” is. When the organization that is supposed to keep things fair “favours” one candidate over another. Lol. You’re kinda making Bernie’s point for him. Heyyyy hang on a sec. Are you the DNC lawyer?? That would totally make sense.
I wouldn't have even let him run. But they did let him run, and he did have a legitimate chance. Their "rigging" consisted of favoring one candidate (the Democrat) over the other. It would be nice if the entire system was rigged to the point where an outsider could not capture the party, thus insulating the Democrats from what happened to the Republicans, but I don't think anyone believes the Dems are that organized.
I will note that HRC was the heavily favored establishment candidate in 2008 and yet a virtually unknown freshman senator captured the nomination from her. So, you know, even when the game is a little rigged you can still win if you are good enough. I'm sorry Bernie wasn't good enough. Maybe next time you should pick a less-flawed candidate.
Lol. Really?? So he was allowed to enter the contest but he wasn’t allowed to win? That’s an interesting take I have to say. So everyone just played along and pretended it was a real contest? The media. Clinton. Sanders. Just a conspiracy to pretend that there were two candidates?You sure about that?
But that’s the most important thing about FB. It’s why they exist. It’s how they make money. They take your personal data, all your chats, all your interests, everything you have ever liked, etc and they sell that data to scumbags who use it to do evil.
No, Sanders did not have the right to call out the Democratic party for ensuring that the Democratic nomination went to a Democrat.
You seem seriously confused about what political parties are. Its almost as if you don't understand the political process at all. Yet you also have very definite opinions on how this thing you don't understand should work.
Really. So Facebook handing over the private personal data of tens of millions of its users in contravention of its own rules to Cambridge Analaytica who then uses that data to help Trump win doesn’t constitute helping trump win in your books?
Democracy is doomed. but it's not because of people like me; it's you. Specifically, your inability to comprehend the basic mechanics of government.
You repeatedly fail to engage the basic concept: Bernie Sanders was not and is not a Democrat. You expected equal access from a private organization as if it were a state entity; you ignored the capture of state entities by Republican operatives. You disparaged the people who got things done because they were complicit with the system and then were surprised when the system did not bend to your will.
Yes, Dems do shitty things. All successful parties do. The point is that they do less shitty things than the other choice. You wanted someone who would never do anything shitty, and instead got someone who would never do anything at all because he couldn't even win a primary.
Also, Bernie Sanders is a shitty candidate. His "socialism" wouldn't even get him into Right-wing politics here in Australia. His wife is dirty, he doesn't have a detailed plan, and he hasn't accomplished jack shit in his 30 years.
Well no. Bernie would have had to have been a *better* candidate than Clinton because the odds were stacked against him with some help from the DNC. Ya know, if you and others can’t be honest about the shitty things the Dems do then the Dems are doomed. Actually so is democracy in general.
Yes, the organization favored one candidate over another. It was not a total fix, in that the other candidate could have won, if only he had been a good enough candidate (like Barack Obama did). But definitely the Democratic party made it harder for the non-Democratic candidate to win the Democratic primary.
There is a fact here that you seem utterly oblivious to. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He wasn't then and he isn't now. So perhaps you could explain just how much the Democratic party owes some rando who walks in off the street and expects to get a promotion over the woman who worked for 30 years to earn it, just because he's got a white penis.
That you think Bernie Sanders was entitled to seize the Democratic party assets for his own use really spells out exactly what it is we all hate about Berniebots: it's that immense sense of entitlement. You didn't plant the seeds, you didn't harvest the crop, you didn't knead the dough, you didn't bake the bread - but by Dog you thought you should get the whole loaf.
Well yeah. That’s what “rigging” is. When the organization that is supposed to keep things fair “favours” one candidate over another. Lol. You’re kinda making Bernie’s point for him. Heyyyy hang on a sec. Are you the DNC lawyer?? That would totally make sense.
Because she is worse than him
She can scream and her compatriots can scream but she is worse than HIM
She is worse than him , she can try and clean and yell but, she's worse than him !
I wouldn't have even let him run. But they did let him run, and he did have a legitimate chance. Their "rigging" consisted of favoring one candidate (the Democrat) over the other. It would be nice if the entire system was rigged to the point where an outsider could not capture the party, thus insulating the Democrats from what happened to the Republicans, but I don't think anyone believes the Dems are that organized.
I will note that HRC was the heavily favored establishment candidate in 2008 and yet a virtually unknown freshman senator captured the nomination from her. So, you know, even when the game is a little rigged you can still win if you are good enough. I'm sorry Bernie wasn't good enough. Maybe next time you should pick a less-flawed candidate.
As one of the few people without a FB account, I just ignore them..
My ignorance undoubtedly has negative aspects.
Lol. Really?? So he was allowed to enter the contest but he wasn’t allowed to win? That’s an interesting take I have to say. So everyone just played along and pretended it was a real contest? The media. Clinton. Sanders. Just a conspiracy to pretend that there were two candidates?You sure about that?
But that’s the most important thing about FB. It’s why they exist. It’s how they make money. They take your personal data, all your chats, all your interests, everything you have ever liked, etc and they sell that data to scumbags who use it to do evil.
Okay, I did not consider that aspect.
No, Sanders did not have the right to call out the Democratic party for ensuring that the Democratic nomination went to a Democrat.
You seem seriously confused about what political parties are. Its almost as if you don't understand the political process at all. Yet you also have very definite opinions on how this thing you don't understand should work.
What’s that derp? The primary wasn’t rigged? Lol. Ok hide behind your derps, derp.
Ok so back to my question. You’ve just admitted the primary was rigged. So Sanders didn’t have the right to call them out on that?
Really. So Facebook handing over the private personal data of tens of millions of its users in contravention of its own rules to Cambridge Analaytica who then uses that data to help Trump win doesn’t constitute helping trump win in your books?