Show me an election where the less popular candidate won,
Are you suggesting that Hillary was more popular than Bernie?
Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 8 hours agoIt’s really amazing that out of the many people who want to talk about how Bernie should have won the 2016 primary, none of them are willing to post the results, where he lost by a significant number of votes.
It’s almost like they think the less popular candidate should have been democratically selected.
Show me an election where the less popular candidate won, and I’ll agree with you that it’s totally bullshit, and the system was rigged, and needs to be reworked.
I’m always open to discuss further, but you will need to confirm that you know the results of the 2016 DNC primary.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I need you to go back, and get the primary results from the 2016 DNC primary and post them here.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
Okay, I now give you permission to say your thing. Let the binds that shackle this one be broken free.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Yes, Hillary got more votes. Not just delegates, like your cute little chart there shows, but actual individual votes. Amongst DNC primary voters, she was the more popular candidate.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
Unfortunately, yes.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
doctordevice@lemmy.ca 2 hours ago
Right, the vote from the election where the winning candidate installed a sycophant as head of DNC who eventually had to resign in disgrace because she was actively rigging the election for Clinton. The election where the Clinton campaign siphoned funds from state races for her own campaign. The election where the Control campaign had documented authority over what the DNC could say. The election where the media, working for the same elite class, reported Clinton as insurmountably ahead before a single primary vote had been cast.
That’s the election that you think the end vote is even a little bit relevant for when people are talking about how it was a corrupt election? Give me a break, you’re just a standard issue neoliberal apologist.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Coming over here doesn’t change shit. Please, prove you are connected to reality.
doctordevice@lemmy.ca 56 minutes ago
You’re the one disconnected with reality. You seriously think you’re winning an argument by petulantly saying the same irrelevant thing over and over. The vote count is not relevant to this discussion when the main offenses occurred before a single vote was cast and very much influenced the course of the election. That’s why the corrupted DNC in collusion with the Clinton campaign did them in the first place.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 48 minutes ago
Oooh… Look at that. Still didn’t meet the bare minimum to discuss further.
I’m gonna make a prediction, you aren’t going to to go look up the results of the 2016 primary and post them here, on your next post. If you don’t, then it’s a pretty blatant admission that you have no interest in actually discussing efficacy of shifting party position by using the primary process, and instead you’d rather throw out ad-hominem attacks and bitch about the results of a primary that, statistically speaking, you probably didn’t even bother to vote in.