"To Bernie voters left out in the cold by a rigged system, we welcome you with open arms".

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, it was never supposed to be a two party system. Over a year as been spent on the primaries and over the next 5-6 months we will be only seeing the results of the two parties.

I thing Ol' Bernie has accomplished his main goal, and that is to get his message out there. I'm not a fan but you really can't argue about his integrity (for as much as I know about him). I don't think he's done yet spreading his message.

"It's time to leave "the lesser of two evils" behind ... forever."

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Gryphon66

that fundamental fact that Clinton has millions more votes than Sanders is true no matter what any ideologue says or believes

That fundamental fact is fundamentally forgetting the uncounted votes, suppressed votes, stolen votes, so on and so forth. Such as, for instance, the 126,000 Democrats purged from Brooklyn.

So really, your fundamental fact is sort of more of a fundamental suggestion that is unreliable and has a lawsuit against it, that you have convinced yourself is a fundamental fact.

Do you have sources that back up your bold claims?

Further more, if those cases of voter fraud are somehow true do you have sources that prove that every single vote that was suppressed or not counted was a vote for Sanders?

If not then I think you should stop referring to your opinions as "facts"

Some people just can't seem to accept the FACT that Hillary has received more votes than Sanders...perhaps TRUE Democrats prefer Clinton?

a reply to: muse7

www.motherjones.com...

www.pbs.org...

There's a quick google search.

Fun fact: Primaries are paid by the taxpayer...I did not know this

a reply to: Gryphon66

Grumbling about how unfair a process is when you joined a party less than a year ago (Sanders) seems counter-productive. It makes it seem like one has taken advantage of a political process that offers exposure on a national stage when one really, fundamentally, disagrees with not only the Democratic platform, but apparently, how votes are counted and delegates are assigned.

The issue with that is that with America's election system it is practically impossible to win outside of one of the two major parties. It's part of the reason why the government is so awful to begin with. Running as a Democrat also additionally serves to spectacularly highlight the ridiculousness of the system.

Your exceptions cover just about every conceivable possibility of error and malfeasance with voting, which is not atypical for those whose candidate of choice has lost. You're not referring to anything concrete, and if you are, do so with specific instances and citations and I'll be glad to discuss it rationally. What lawsuit? Where? Brought by whom? What "uncounted" votes? What "stolen" votes? And so on, and so forth?

Lawsuit: www.youtube.com...
(The video doesn't seem that amazing, but it proves it exists.)

Exit Poll analysis: richardcharnin.wordpress.com...

Aside from that, there are the obvious things like the NY voter purges. There have been problems plaguing the primaries this entire year, problems which -coincidentally?- tend to favor Hillary.

There are also a large number of anecdotal accounts of weird stuff at polling stations. As well as people claiming that they received emails from Hillary's campaign despite only giving their email to Sanders, after Sanders "hacked" Clinton's database (the employee who did that being recommended by the DNC itself).

a reply to: muse7

You really aren't one for words, are you?

If not then I think you should stop referring to your opinions as "facts"

Where did I do that? Quote me. The line specifically.

There's also that timely AP press release.

a reply to: JinMI

That was more "just" a blatant attempt to manipulate the vote. Even if it's awful journalism, it's not technically illegal as far as I'm aware.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No quibble from me on the failures of the two party system in the US.

Running as a Democrat may show up flaws in the system, but it also brings national notoriety that Sanders otherwise would not have had. I don't think there's any debate on that topic. He went from being that old curmudgeon guy from Vermont on MSNBC interviews to an "alternative" to Hillary Clinton. That wouldn't have been possible (and in my opinion, shouldn't have been possible) without the Democratic Party.

You're talking about election irregularities, incompetence and errors. I would not debate the existence of those with you even a little bit. For well over a decade, every time we have had a local or national investigation into voter/election fraud, it has been clearly demonstrated that while it may exist, the effect is infinitesimal. In other words, those factors do not change the fact that it is CLEAR that Hillary Clinton has received the vast majority of the popular Democratic vote.

In short, Bernie's gotten what he really wanted out of the Primaries, and I'm glad to see him run independently.

But he is not and will not be the Democratic nominee.

originally posted by: JinMI
There's also that timely AP press release.

LOL ... that in the 2008 election was "announced" in March instead of May.

Announcing a presumptive winner is not in any way illegitimate.

Announcing a presumptive candidate is not illegal, I'm not arguing that. It does however show extreme bias and it's worth mentioning that it was parroted by plenty of other news outlets. It sways voters. News agencies are supposed to report the news not shift the playing field.

I mentioned it as another "irregularity" as Gryph put it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking about election irregularities, incompetence and errors. I would not debate the existence of those with you even a little bit. For well over a decade, every time we have had a local or national investigation into voter/election fraud, it has been clearly demonstrated that while it may exist, the effect is infinitesimal. In other words, those factors do not change the fact that it is CLEAR that Hillary Clinton has received the vast majority of the popular Democratic vote.

Yes, election irregularities. Irregularities with a pattern, the pattern being that they always favor Hillary Clinton. At first you think it's a coincidence, then it happens again. Again. Again. Again. Again. Again.

The effect of voter fraud is almost meaningless. That is, fraud perpetrated by individual voters such as a person voting in two separate states. Election fraud is perpetrated by the government/organisation itself and has significantly more impact. You think it's infinitesimal? I'd say that the 126,000 residents of Brooklyn purged from the system disagree with you.
Your logic is faulty, the lack of prior major cases does not make it impossible for a major case to occur. This election in particular stands out, this election in particular, of all others, would be the most likely for that first case to occur. I'd be willing to overlook some irregularities as incompetence or coincidence if the suspect was Rand Paul, or even O'Malley. But not this many. And not Hillary Clinton.

No, it's not clear, it's not clear at all. You just think it's clear. Please stop using the word "fact" conjoined with your opinion. Your case is hardly air tight, and while it's true that mine isn't either, at least have the grace to admit that the true results of this primary are far from certain. There is currently a lawsuit underway. There are an unknown number of uncounted votes. Even if you want to think that Hillary would have won the primary without her fraud, remember the FBI wildcard that could do god knows what over the coming weeks.

But if you want to shut your eyes and think it's an over and done fact, then remember to plug your ears, and hum loudly.

originally posted by: carewemust
How can Donald Trump prove that he's not intentionally throwing the election to Hillary? Should I start a thread with this question?

all it shows is the republican party isnt far right enough for some.
republicans like the amish, believe the world was best in 1840 and are scared of change.
throw in some vitriolic hate speech and you have the new right in america.
get a failed reality tv star to speak his mind while espousing these views, you get trump.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

You know, in the 25 years I have been able to vote, I have always supported Democratic nominee's ideals. On my very first election, I voted for Bill Clinton. I was drawn into the propaganda bull# of Rock the Vote because I was naive and believed Clinton was Presidential (I just rolled my eyes so hard, I saw my brain). FFWD to today and I see his Wife who failed in Libya at Benghazi, causing avoidable deaths, who LIED to Congress, has an active Federal investigation for ESPIONAGE & INFLUENCE PEDDLING and is CLEARLY committing election fraud by securing super delegates in states in which Bernie won. So, no. I will never support Shillary. If Bernie drops out, I'm voting Trump. The only office Clinton deserves is the warden's office, not the Oval Office.
Yes, he's racist and yes, he's xenophobic but at least he isn't a freakin' criminal or a TRAITOR!!!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I'm really not going to bicker about election fraud. I've heard the explanations, inconsistencies on both sides, etc.

You know why? I'm not going to argue with belief. That's what you're sharing here, and that shows in the hyperbolic assertion that these issues happened time after time (... after time after), that they were always in Clinton's favor, which logically would require a nationwide effort on the part of hundreds of people who are all complicit in some sort of grand "Anti Sanders" conspiracy and can keep quiet about it.

The fact is, Americans who are Democrats did not choose Bernie Sanders they chose Hillary Clinton.

Overwhelmingly.

That's it. Period.

originally posted by: JinMI
Announcing a presumptive candidate is not illegal, I'm not arguing that. It does however show extreme bias and it's worth mentioning that it was parroted by plenty of other news outlets. It sways voters. News agencies are supposed to report the news not shift the playing field.

I mentioned it as another "irregularity" as Gryph put it.

Can you name an election year in which the press did NOT announce the presumptive nominee when the primary totals clearly showed that one candidate was winning?

It happened in 2008 in March. I'll be glad to look at the facts.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: carewemust
How can Donald Trump prove that he's not intentionally throwing the election to Hillary? Should I start a thread with this question?

all it shows is the republican party isnt far right enough for some.
republicans like the amish, believe the world was best in 1840 and are scared of change.
throw in some vitriolic hate speech and you have the new right in america.
get a failed reality tv star to speak his mind while espousing these views, you get trump.

They believe the world was 3k years old in 1840. A rather important nugget to remember.

Sanders vows to work with Clinton as Dems move toward party unity - CNN

Democrats took giant steps toward party unity Thursday as Bernie Sanders vowed to work together with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November and President Barack Obama formally endorsed Clinton for president. Sanders' decision to continue his White House bid even after Clinton became the party's presumptive presidential nominee has had Democrats on high alert as they seek to quickly change gears and take on Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Sanders' first explicit promise on Thursday to join forces with Clinton to take on the Republicans will help quell concerns among Democrats about divisions in the party. Emerging from the White House after a meeting with Obama that lasted more than an hour, Sanders warned that a Trump presidency would be a "disaster" and that he would "work as hard as I can to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States."

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
Announcing a presumptive candidate is not illegal, I'm not arguing that. It does however show extreme bias and it's worth mentioning that it was parroted by plenty of other news outlets. It sways voters. News agencies are supposed to report the news not shift the playing field.

I mentioned it as another "irregularity" as Gryph put it.

Can you name an election year in which the press did NOT announce the presumptive nominee when the primary totals clearly showed that one candidate was winning?

It happened in 2008 in March. I'll be glad to look at the facts.

Again, not saying it is illegal, I'm saying it is wrong. That's my opinion. Also to that, I'm not saying you are wrong. In fact you are right they did announce his presumptive nomination in '08.

Super delegates do not vote until later at the convention. That is the fact. Sure they were polled and sure they said they voted for Clinton or Bernie...but..well politicians have a way with telling the truth.

The fact that it happened on a Monday, the day before a 6 state primary, just screams red flag. This is still a conspiracy site about denying ignorance right?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

LOL. Trump is not appealing to Sanders supporters. The only Sanders supporters that will end up voting for Trump are those few that just want to watch the country burn.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft



I really can't understand why anyone supporting Bernie would vote for Trump... ever.

You are right, they will not be voting for Trump. However some Trump supporters from 4chan and Reddit have been spamming the internet with claims that they will vote for Trump.