ttystikk
Well-Known Member
...and I didn't believe a word of it.
"White working class voters are good people, they're not racist, not sexist" -Joe Biden
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There. Belief without proof. I recall you saying the same earlier, so at least you are consistent.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Everyone would have equal voice in a popular vote system. 100% equal no matter where you hang your hat. I don't see how it could be any more democratic than that.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
She's a politician who changed her story. You may believe her if you like, but that doesn't make your opinion any more credible than mine.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I can see the point in making the presidential election a popular vote. He is the national leader and it would make sense that he should be the winner of a nationwide vote. I also see the point in the EC. Without the EC, the campaigns would completely ignore states like Nevada and most of the country for that matter. The constitution was written to avoid complete domination of minorities by the majority. Hasn't worked perfectly -- or even well when one considers slave states and later, segregation -- but that was a general idea in much of the founding of the US govt.
Basically, it was Clinton's role to convince voters in enough states to vote for her. This required her to consider issues important to more than the seaboard states.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
People don't really want democracy; they want THEIR way and fuck everyone else lol
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Politicians can learn and change positions it happens all the time. It's a matter of record that Clinton was in support of TPP and later on switched her position. Opposition to TPP was part of her campaign and part of the DNC platform. A democratic Senate with Sanders in leadership position would have been outraged if she changed her position after being elected. So, there was a check on her. The facts are what they are. Clinton did not run on a pro-TPP position.
Belief without needing facts to back the belief is less reliable.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Cuz she SAID so! Are you for real, bro?
You don't have any more/better evidence upon which to base your opinion about this than I do. Any suggestion otherwise is biased.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I think you've just effectively defined political polarity. All or nothing.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's important to know what people's real desires are. It's then easier to work backwards to what they're willing to live with, which ends up looking a lot like democracy.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Fact: Clinton won the nomination by accruing enough delegates to win the nomination. Also fact: Super delegates were not a factor. Also fact: Clinton won 16,914,722 (55.2%) votes in the overall to Bernie's 13,206,428 (43.1%) votes (wikipedia).
The only fact you can hang your hat on is the DNC-media "collusion" scandal. It is a fact that this happened.
Two possible outcomes from this:
The collusion did not flip the election to Clinton (null hypothesis)
The collusion did flip the election to Clinton. (alternate outcome)
It is not possible to prove the null hypothesis. Can the alternate outcome be proven? I think we agree that it cannot. And so, I don't hang my hat on either. I'm just saying it cannot be proven one way or the other. I say I'm skeptical of the alternate because of the size of the claim -- that 3.7 million people were corruptly caused to change their vote from Bernie to Clinton. And so, I reject this assertion. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of failure to be convinced.
You and others hold onto a belief that the alternate hypothesis is true. Yet I'm not talking to a religious bigot who excludes information that is counter to their belief. I'm talking to somebody who's opinion I value but question how they can believe something that is extraordinary and unprovable. So I ask, when in history has the size of fraud been accomplished in an election completely due to the kind of collusion that the DNC and media did commit? We aren't talking about ballot box stuffing, gestapo intimidation and outright vote suppression such as other dictatorial regimes committed. We are talking about an externally undetectable bias in the media that was so powerful nearly 4 million people were caused to change their vote in a matter of 18 months. This I find unbelievable. So, no, it is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of disbelief.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You just changed the subject. I could swear we were talking about Mrs Clinton's support for the TPP.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
"The bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it." Joseph Goebbels
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOL. I got me left wing beliefs mixed up. With regard to TPP, you are right. I don't know what Clinton was going to do although I wish that we were in that reality instead of the "Trump is draining the swamp by stopping the drainage and stocking it with alligators" reality. Since I can't know what Clinton was going to do, I have only her words and past history to help me make up my mind. So, OK, I'll concede your point here. You think Clinton was going to implement TPP in spite of her words. That again seems to me to be an outsized claim -- that she would come out strongly against TPP yet secretly plan to endorse it when elected in spite of having a strong faction in her party aligned against it. Believing in outsized claims is beginning to be a pattern.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Doesn't that apply to you? You are the one who believes that 4 million people flipped their vote due to an externally undectable media bias. I'm the one who doesn't believe it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Believing in outsized claims is how the Chump got elected.
We no longer live in rational political times.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, you are going with the times? I think I'll hold on to reality and remain skeptical of outsized claims that can't be proven.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I voted for Bernie in the primary and then Clinton in the general, supporting my party.
My belief is that 2 million people out of 100 million plus- that's all it would have taken- were biased by media manipulation.
You're right; I can't prove it. That's why it was a genius move.
You can't prove it didn't happen, either.
Why didn't exit polls square with actual results? Why, in direct response to this criticism, did the MSM then take the unprecedented step of STOPPING EXIT POLLS altogether?
You may believe what you like.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm looking at the results and working backwards to find causes. There were plenty.
Again, you're free to believe what you like, based on any evidence you find relevant.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Giving up on reason? You choose to believe something that is not provable and requires the presence of an undetectable bias with a large effect. You are free to believe it.
Last edited: