1105
We coulda had Bernie...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1105 points (89.2% liked)
White People Twitter
4511 readers
2681 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The DNC signed it's death warrant with that one. Bernie got screwed. We got Trump. The Supreme Court just handed Trump ultimate supreme dictator status. We all know Biden doesn't have the balls to do anything about it and he certainly isn't going to win the election.
As long as the R's can get 40 seats in the Senate this fall the great experiment finally fails.
One thing you got wrong is that Bernie got screwed. He got demolished by Clinton, by 12% points and millions of votes. It wasn't even close. Democrats wanted Clinton, and the major complaints about the DNC during the primary was that they said nasty things about him in an email and gave her some debate questions. That's it. It made no difference in the outcome.
Am I the only one that remember wieserman-sholtz getting successfully sued over that? I swear this country has the memory of an 81 year old president.
Nah, this dude is just lying their asses off for some reason. I get voting for the lesser of two evils, I mean I voted for Clinton as well. But, apparently there are still ride or die Clinton heads out here still sucking down the copium.
What are you referring to, exactly?
Only after the rest of the moderate candidates were convinced to drop out before the debate and voting.... Sanders would have likely won the primaries if there were more moderates on the ticket to split the vote.
So you're saying because the winner was someone more representative of who the average Democrat voted, sanders got screwed.
No, I'm saying that the DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.
They didn't decide. The people voted for Clinton and then Biden, overwhelmingly. Because that's the type of candidate they believe they want. Remember, sanders didnt drop out, he lost. Overwhelmingly so.
They didn't decide
Guessing you've never heard of the term "manufacturing consent"?
Are you pretending that's been your argument up to this point?
Btw, why didn't you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?
My dude, you are the one making claims. I'm just negating them as they come.
Again.... Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?
Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.
I used the word argument, not claims. Are you suggesting you aren't making an argument?
So, how exactly did they rig it? You're making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.
Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.
An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.
My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I'm "pretending if that's been my argument the whole time" is nonsensical.
I never claimed anything was "rigged", that's a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.
You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.
You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text "they didn't decide" and are now trying to argue that you never claimed it was rigged. This is amazing. You've got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what's right, that you don't even know which way's up anymore.
Lol, the reason it's in quotes is because it's quoting you.
This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was "has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses"
You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.
Again, you don't even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.
Said the man to the mirror.
It's in quotes because I was quoting you. If it had been in quotes when I quoted it from you, I would have done something like "'They didn't decide.'" Although I wouldn't have even done that, because I'm honest and not trying to be right. I would have wondered why I misinterpreted it. You don't strike me as all that dumb, but to not even go and look three posts up to see if you had quoted it seems incredibly dumb, especially if you are basing your whole argument on it.
Is what I originally said.... You decided to take it out of context and change the phrasing, interpreting it as if I claimed they rigged the primaries. In reality they did decide who they thought deserves to be the president, the impartiality is clear.
You aren't being very academically honest.
This is all moot, the original argument was that you claimed all the DNC did was write some bad email, and that's just not true. The DNC showed a remarkable amount of bias in the primaries. All your other arguments have just been poor attempts to distract from the fact that your original statement was a lie.
Go kick rocks.
I love how you won't even admit that you weren't quoting me, and that you were clearly indicating that they had rigged the other election, but then have the nerve to say I'm being academically dishonest. Lol classic projection.
Lol
And
Are the same to you...?
Keep trying to shift the goal post.
You are the one who made an assertion, I rebutted it with sources evidence. You keep trying to squirm away from the fact that you were absolutely wrong. You can keep up the gish gallop of logical fallacies if you want, but we both know you have failed to defend your original affirmation, so now you are relying on semantic reasoning.
Project harder next time.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.
Are you actually trying to say you did not say "They didn't decide"? Because it's right there, just a few posts up. Literally word for word.
Are you really not smart enough to just go look back after I told you you said it? Or are you just grossly dishonest? Who are you lying for here? You can't honestly believe you can gaslight, because it's still right there for me to look at.
Can you not see that you were the first to state "They didn't decide"?
Again, "DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses." Is not the same as "they decided".
Believing someone deserves something is not the same as giving something to someone. It's just evidence of partiality.
I think you may need to work on your rhetoric and reading comprehension.
Also, I see you've continued to ignore the fact that you haven't defended your original statement. You know..... the whole point of the argument.
Bernie refused to join the DNC. He was doing his usual pump&dump dirty pool of winning a Primary and refusing the nomination so that the Democrats wouldn't be able to run anyone in the general.
...because he couldn't get as many votes. None of that superdelegate bullshit people are talking about came to pass. He just wasn't popular enough among a party he refused to be a member of. Go figure.
What new decision did SCOTUS make?
Absolute immunity for all official acts by a president, whether technically within their power or not. It's now possible Trump cannot be held accountable for his attempted coup because he did it as the sitting president - because SCOTUS implied it's Constitutional for him to attempt to overthrow the government.