Oprah 2020

[ahhell]

I don't really know what you want to hear.

I'm not disagreeing with your factoids, just the conclusion you seem to want to wring out of them. I don't agree that your points add up to "rigged" or even particularly under handed or dishonest. At worst it's just unapologetic.

If this is turning into some rabbit hole you want me to follow you down I'll pass.

Can you at least understand how someone can look at those facts and come to a different conclusion?

What about the Washington State primary that was literally nothing more than a poll?

 

[Segnosaur]

I am frustrated by this conversation.

And many of us are frustrated by you.

We (meaning myself and a few other poster here) have pointed out multiple times how the 2016 primaries were not rigged. We've gone into long explanations of how the primary process works, used historical events for evidence, and even been proactive in debunking claims that might have been made about the primaries but haven't yet.

Yet over and over again you return to the same tired claim, providing no evidence in support.

Is it incorrect to say that 15% of the delegates were not selected via voting in the primary?
Is it incorrect to say that most democrats didn't know that prior to 2016?

Nobody is denying that superdelegates made up ~15% of the delegates. I have no idea how many voters knew about the superdelegates (may have been a majority, may not have been.)

The point is, it is completely and totally irrelevant to your claim that the primaries were rigged against Sanders.

Once again, Clinton won the majority of regular delegates. Got that? Even if super delegates did not exist, Clinton would have won. Not really sure how clearer that could be. What is it about that concept that you don't seem to understand?

And not only did Clinton win the majority of regular delegates, she also obtained more actual primary votes.

And once again, Even if clinton had more superdelegates at the start, that does not mean Sanders wasn't given a fair shot.. As has been pointed out to you, in previous primaries, superdelgates changed their votes when a particular candidate gained in popularity.

Was the purpose of that to prevent a grass roots candidate from getting the Democrat Party nomination?

Given the fact that 15% is nowhere near a majority, it is doubtful that superdelegates could have stopped a truly popular grass roots candidate from actually getting nominated. Because, you know, 15% is actually less than 50%. You do know that, right?

Of course, Sanders didn't actually get 50% of the regular delegates, nor did he get more than 50% of the actual primary votes. You know who DID get more than 50% of the regular delegates? Hillary Clinton. You know, the one who was voted in by the rank-and-file party members, and not because "Gee wiz.. the DNC wants her".

Seriously, how many more ways does that need to be explained to you?

 

[Segnosaur]

Can you at least understand how someone can look at those facts and come to a different conclusion?

I can understand that someone can have preconceived biases (as you seem to have) and seek to misuse irrelevant facts in order to attempt to justify their position.

What about the Washington State primary that was literally nothing more than a poll?

What about them?

First of all, Washington state had caucuses in March, where the delegates were actually awarded. (Of which Sanders won the majority.)

They had a primary vote in May (which Clinton won), but no delegates got awarded in that. (I'm not from Washington state and have no idea why the state does that secondary vote.)

But the fact that they have a strange 2-stage system doesn't mean that Sanders was at any sort of a disadvantage. Both candidates were on identical footing. Heck, that Sanders actually won the majority of delegates illustrates the lack of bias perfectly. After all, caucuses can distort the electoral process (since it favors candidates with small but intensely dedicated supporters over those with a broader base.) That 'poll' illustrates that most Democrats in Washington preferred Clinton, but Sanders won. If the system were truly rigged in favor of Clinton, why didn't she win the state?

Now, if you wanted to make a case to get the parties to be more consistent between states, then fine, but that is not the same as the vote being rigged.

 

[Belz...]

I am frustrated by this conversation.
Is it incorrect to say that 15% of the delegates were not selected via voting in the primary?
Is it incorrect to say that most democrats didn't know that prior to 2016?
Was the purpose of that to prevent a grass roots candidate from getting the Democrat Party nomination?

That they didn't know how the system worked isn't much of an argument. They weren't interested enough to find out, that's on them.

 

[ahhell]

Now I'm just amused. A game can be rigged for someone who would have one anyway.

But again, all I'm saying is that the primary system was designed to give candidates favored by the party leadership a leg up. That's pretty clearly true. That it didn't really matter doesn't change that. Further, I'm saying a lot of primary voters didn't know that and that its understandable that they see it as unfair and that's probably bad for the party in the long run to have bunch of disgruntled voters.

As short hand I said "it was rigged". Sorry for that.

The other thing I've said as more of a related side point, the primary system generally does this buy making the system seem more democratic than it actually is(for both parties) which is a recipe for disgruntled voters.

I am genuinely surprised by the push back. I'm not a Dem and align much more closely with Hillary than Bernie and voted for her in the general. I just understand why some folks are disgruntled over the way the Dems handled their primary.

That they didn't know how the system worked isn't much of an argument. They weren't interested enough to find out, that's on them.

Essentially, **** them. A lot of good that will do anyone, it will just serve to piss them off more.

 

[Segnosaur]

But again, all I'm saying is that the primary system was designed to give candidates favored by the party leadership a leg up.

Seriously, are you a troll?

Its been explained multiple frackin times why that statement is wrong and why the party leadership does not have the influence to install anyone as a presidential nominee.

Please, go back and read this thread.

That's pretty clearly true.

Its only true for morons who don't know how to read. Go back and read this thread. Its been explained why you're wrong multiple times.

Further, I'm saying a lot of primary voters didn't know that and that its understandable that they see it as unfair

Perhaps you can actually do something to help.

And what you can do to help is actually go back and read through this thread to understand why you are wrong. Once you do so, maybe you can stop perpetuating the myth that the primaries were rigged to put Sanders at a disadvantage.

The reason that primary voters may have the wrong idea that the primaries were rigged is largely because of lying scumbags and useful idiots who keep perpetuating the lie of the "rigged primaries" despite such claims failing to measure up to scrutiny.

 

[Belz...]

Now I'm just amused. A game can be rigged for someone who would have one anyway.

It wasn't rigged. The rules were out there for all to see, and even were it only for the member votes Clinton would've won.

But again, all I'm saying is that the primary system was designed to give candidates favored by the party leadership a leg up.

Yes, and? The DNC is not a public organisation. They can present whichever candidate they want.

Essentially, **** them.

Strawman.

 

[ahhell]

Seriously, are you a troll?

Its been explained multiple frackin times why that statement is wrong and why the party leadership does not have the influence to install anyone as a presidential nominee.

Not at all what I said. A leg up, even rigged is not "installed". I completely agree if an outside candidate gets more 65% of the delegates in the primaries, they'll win but they'd have to get 65% rather than 51. Why is it so important for you guys to say that isn't an advantage?

 

[Segnosaur]

Not at all what I said. A leg up, even rigged is not "installed".

Except of course Clinton didn't get a "leg up". No rigging existed. Please go back and read this thread.

Really, what is it about that statement that you don't understand?

I completely agree if an outside candidate gets more 65% of the delegates in the primaries, they'll win but they'd have to get 65% rather than 51.

Clinton got more than 300 regular delegates more than Sanders.

Got it?

It was not a close race in any way shape or form.

Why is it so important for you guys to say that isn't an advantage?

Because we're not idiots who are desperately clinging to the false narrative that Sanders was at a disadvantage because of the DNC.

Because we believe in facts and evidence, of which you have provided none.

Because we recognize that Useful Idiots and scumbags that keep pointing out false statements like "Sanders was disadvantaged" are harmful to democracy.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not at all what I said. A leg up, even rigged is not "installed". I completely agree if an outside candidate gets more 65% of the delegates in the primaries, they'll win but they'd have to get 65% rather than 51. Why is it so important for you guys to say that isn't an advantage?

Why do you imagine that the superdelegates would be obligated to vote against this imaginary candidate? What if they all voted for him/her instead? Would you then claim that the primary is rigged against insiders?

 

[ahhell]

I'm going to bow out of this conversation. But I'll leave with an analogy that will also go nowhere.

It feels like I walked into a room and said, "The sky sure is aqua"
Then a bunch of folks started yelling at me and saying, "Whats with you ******** constantly saying the sky is aqua"
I then said, "Ok maybe not aqua but certainly its teal"
Them, "are some some kind of troll, its goddamn blue"
Me, "really its greenish blue."
Them, "Shut up to you and everyone who thinks its at all greenish."
A. I really don't understand the anger at a slight difference in shade.
B. As far as I can see the sky really has a slight greenish tint to the blue.



The above is merely an opinion regarding my subjective feelings regarding this conversation. I'm genuinely confused by the reaction I've gotten.

 

[luchog]

On the other hand, Oprah started out in conditions might be considered poverty, and yet has managed to build a financial and media empire that rivals Trump's. (She may even be wealthier, since Trump hasn't been forthcoming with his financial information, and he may not even be a billionaire.)

Not that I would want Oprah to be president. But, if the choice were between Oprah and Trump, Oprah would have much more going for her.

Yeah, she's much better at promoting scams and pandering to ignorant, anti-intellectual idiots than Trump; given that that's how she built her empire.

 

[xjx388]

Seriously, are you a troll?

Its been explained multiple frackin times why that statement is wrong and why the party leadership does not have the influence to install anyone as a presidential nominee.

Please, go back and read this thread.

Why the strong reaction towards ahhell? I don't get it. JoeBentley is basically saying that the only thing ahhell is wrong about is that primaries are not "rigged" because that's the way the system is designed; the party leadership isn't even trying to hide that they are the ones who pick the nominee.

Its only true for morons who don't know how to read. Go back and read this thread. Its been explained why you're wrong multiple times.

If JoeBentley is correct, then it's clearly true that Sanders never had a chance because the DNC had already picked Hillary to run.

If you disagree with that (and it seems that you do), then it makes no sense why you would pick on ahhell and call him a troll yet let JoeBentley's assessment, which goes even further than ahhell's, go unchallenged.

Perhaps you can actually do something to help.

And what you can do to help is actually go back and read through this thread to understand why you are wrong. Once you do so, maybe you can stop perpetuating the myth that the primaries were rigged to put Sanders at a disadvantage.

The reason that primary voters may have the wrong idea that the primaries were rigged is largely because of lying scumbags and useful idiots who keep perpetuating the lie of the "rigged primaries" despite such claims failing to measure up to scrutiny.

If JoeBentley is correct, then the primaries are indeed rigged in that the DNC leadership picks the nominee and the other candidates don't have a chance.

 

[luchog]

In fairness to Bernie, the Dem primary was rigged in favor of established candidates with super delegates and what not. Other than that you are right, He'll be 80 and he really didn't come close to beating a terrible candidate.

That's because the primary was bought and paid for by Clinton, which was flatly admitted by the powers that be in the DNC after the election. She bailed out the DNC financially when it was looking at bankruptcy. Without that, there is no way she would have beaten out Sanders in the primary. Even with the huge advantages that she had and the active collusion of the DNC staff, including withholding voter roll data from the Sanders campaign, Sanders still came awful close to beating her.

 

[William Parcher]

Yeah, she's much better at promoting scams and pandering to ignorant, anti-intellectual idiots than Trump; given that that's how she built her empire.

I don't know enough about Oprah to know if she is woo or anti-intellectual herself in real life. I'm not endorsing her. Would she vaccinate if she had a child?

 

[luchog]

I don't know enough about Oprah to know if she is woo or anti-intellectual herself in real life. I'm not endorsing her. Would she vaccinate if she had a child?

A distinction without any real relevance. That's how she got rich and famous, and there's no reason to expect that she would not continue to do so once she got into politics, since that would be the most effective way to build and maintain a voter base, as the GOP has ably demonstrated, particularly considering just how much of the Left also leans anti-intellectual and pro-woo.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If JoeBentley is correct, then the primaries are indeed rigged in that the DNC leadership picks the nominee and the other candidates don't have a chance.

Okay I seriously don't know what is that people are trying to "gotcha" me with here. Like you've got me on the ropes with this "If I say the DNC Leadership picks the nominees I have to admit it's rigged." That doesn't make sense.

I'm saying the DNC leadership picks the nominee and the system is not rigged.

Yes the DNC is who picks the nominee for the Democratic Party. How is that a rigged system?

I'm not sure exactly what bomb is supposed to have just dropped here. "The leadership of the Democratic Party is the one who chooses the Democratic nominee!" What? Is my jaw supposed to drop? Is anyones? What is even being reacted to here? Oh my God you're telling me that control of the Democratic Party is being controlled by forces that go all the way.. to the top of the Democratic Party!? *Gasp, faint*

If it leaked tomorrow that a major corporation's Board of Directors acted for the benefit of the company would people be freaking out, saying that system was rigged? Why do people think is different?

Yes the leadership of the Democratic Party... makes the decisions for the Democratic Party. That's what leadership means. How is it "rigging" when a group makes decisions for itself? How does this concept even apply?

What exactly do people think the major political are exactly and why they exist in the first place? I'm being dead serious. Do people honestly think they are some sort of... part of the government? That they are held to democratic principles? That they are democracies? Do you think two massive organizations exist just for the privilege of being told who a bunch of Americans intend to vote for? If we're telling the parties what to do instead of vice versa what function would the parties even serve?

They're clubs. Private organizations that make decisions based on their own best interests. Big fund raising and lobbying groups. The Voter Bases they are aligned with are not their bosses.

It's like people are mad at me because they just always assumed the political parties answered to them like that's my fault.

If anyone thought that the members of their party in when acting on and deciding matters solely pertaining to internal party politics answered to them as if there were acting in capacity as an elected official... I'm sorry but that's not my fault or my problem.

The system is only "rigged" to the degree that a percentage of the population is dependent on the party to tell them who to vote for and to basically do their political thinking for them. If you already know who you are going to vote for who the "party" picks is a by definition non-issue.

 

[luchog]

Okay I seriously don't know what is that people are trying to "gotcha" me with here. Like you've got me on the ropes with this "If I say the DNC Leadership picks the nominees I have to admit it's rigged." That doesn't make sense.

I'm saying the DNC leadership picks the nominee and the system is not rigged.

Yes the DNC is who picks the nominee for the Democratic Party. How is that a rigged system?

Because, up until this election, the DNC and others claimed that the candidate for president is picked from a pool of available registered candidates during a process known as a primary election, by the citizens via a plurality of the popular vote in popular vote states, and a plurality of caucus voters in caucus states. If the DNC decides who the candidate will regardless of what the primary voters want, then why bother going through the farce, not to mention the sheer expense, of a primary election in the first place?

The candidate is supposed to be decided by the voters who are registered with the party, or who support the party, and who vote in the party's primary, not the DNC leadership. At least, that's the fiction that we've been taught up until this most recent election.

 

[William Parcher]

Now Seal says Oprah is bad because she knew about Weinstein and didn't do anything.

 

[TragicMonkey]

At this rate we'd do better putting people in office who've been chosen at random. It's either a politically connected multi millionaire or an outsider multi millionaire. What do those bastards know of real life as experienced by the majority of people? Attach a random number generator to a search engine and feed them the white pages, chances are good that the result will be better than the evil idiots and maniacs we have now.