Dauntless said:
Um, Nooooooo, at least if you're a reasonable person. If you're delusionally prejudiced you'd insist on concluding whatever you want and disregarding the truth of I know that stuff every well. Name for me an election where there's never been anyone screaming 'FRAUD!'
...
(Oh, and may I complement you on the impressiveness of the sources you keep coming up with. The incredible reputability, the soundness.)
A reasonable person wouldn't insist on someone proving a negative in effort to support or deconstruct an argument, nor would they metaphorically poison the well in order to negate the validity of discussed variables.
If you want to express an opinion about Florida in 2000, why don't you learn about it?
What is this opinion that you seem to imply that I have expressed?
I have never even stated my opinion on this subject within this topic. I watched a portion of it on Live TV and could cite a number of books in which it is mentioned in some context or even covered in-depth as a subject matter. With that being said, do you know a quantifiable threshold of one's level of knowledge on this subject to where their opinion becomes valid, or does your perception of what one's opinion is on that subject determine that threshold for you?
Starting with the fact that Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet, just as Sara Palin never said she knew foreign relations because she could see Russia from her back porch.
You seem awfully defensive of Gore considering that I was making fun of a demographic of his critics with that comment, moreso than Gore himself. I referred to him as the "supposed inventor of the internet" and not as anything more or less than that.
The issue in Florida had to do with things such as the 'Butterfly Ballot' that gained Nader and Buchanan far more votes than the exit polls indicated, (People THOUGHT they'd voted for someone else, but the ballot itself is what counts, not the intent) let alone the 'Hanging Chad' issue. Unrelated to the exit polls, there's the nearly 100,000 black Democrats the Republicans removed as 'Convicted Felons' who in fact had never been arrested. If a tiny fraction of those who showed up to vote and at some polls were in a near riot had actually voted there'd have been no real problem with the rest, Al Gore would have won. The official government investigation called that a very serious voter fraud. But nothing happened. There's huge numbers of voters stricken for the wrong reasons all the time, but somehow my sister left the state before I could even register and was still registered to vote in California for quite some time.
This issue is far from isolated to either the state of Florida or the 2000 (s)election...
I've earlier in this topic briefly talked about and cited specific and/or generalized occurrences of faulty voting equipment, illegal purging of voters from the rolls, and occurrences of fraud. These occurrences are a regular feature of the U.S. (s)election process. Anomalies are quite commonplace in the (s)election process for being as popularly described as anomalies as they are, which I also find amusing given that you can spot these described anomalies or ones comparable to them for virtually every presidential (s)election since the mid 19th century.
There was a Supreme Court decision that impacted the 2000 (s)election as a sort of apex of the judicial branch flexing its legal nutsack, with all of this illegal and/or legal undermining of our (s)electoral system going on in the background while nothing happened to solve the numerous problems present. The Supreme Court was simultaneously undermining the U.S. Constitution in the process... such flagrant undermining going all the way back to a flawed precedent set during the case of Marbury v. Madison.
When you know anything about what REALLY goes on in elections, you come to realize how facetious your little links really are. Although that will require caring about the truth. Of course two long meandering posts demonstrate you're only interested in spewing your bile.
Your perceived measurement of my level of knowledge of the U.S. electoral process is of no bearing on the facts themselves or their state of validity.
I cannot help but think that you are projecting your own shortcomings onto me, given your above statement in response to the argument I had made. You have addressed nothing I had said, while assuming false things about me.
I for one won't waste time on using anything ridiculously threadbare to support my side.
What was so "threadbare" about those links? If you follow the sources within them, you could spend at least a few hours reading... What do you take issue with?
Bernie, on the other hand, is screaming because more of the unpledged delegates are choosing (Left of Bill)ary than are choosing him. No, Bernie, they are not supposed to be distributed evenly, that would defeat the whole point of HAVING delegates. Just more proof of how unbalanced the guy really is.
I do believe there was a controversy about superdelegates being already biased in favor of Hitlery before the primary (s)election circus began, a majority of which had already made their mind up. Debbie Wassermann-Shultz herself stated that the purpose of the Superdelegates is so that establishment party insiders "don't have to be in a position of running against grassroots activists..."
Considering what else has transpired throught this (s)election circus, he could be screaming about a whole lot more, but for whatever reason, isn't.
For the record, I never quite trusted Sanders through the duration of his running, nor have any emotional investment in his candidacy, as you seemed to imply in your responses to me.
Dauntless said:
You don't know anything about Hitler.
You don't know what I do and don't know about Hitler... I was at first perplexed at your comment since I wasn't talking about Hitler. I specifically described a subject referred to as "Hitlery", a derogatory term I use when describing the presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other favored names of mine to describe her include but are not limited to: Shillary, Billary, "The Butcher of Benghazi", The Hilldabeast, and "the shrill bug-eyed ankle-biting barking bitch."
Hitlery's stated position on guns is not qualitatively or quantitatively dissimilar to the policy of forced registration that occurred under Adolf Hitler's regime after the signing of the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938. In today's American dystopia, background check requirements in function do amount to a list of all of those who had purchased guns and had undergone the check, a list conveniently at the disposal of the U.S. Federal Government. Hillary wants to, using her own words, "strengthen" these requirements and screen out those deemed "terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill" by what will possibly be some unaccountable bureaucracy totally unresponsive to public concerns in the event that mistakes are made(and historically, they always are, small and big). For her to successfully implement this proposal would require everyone seeking to purchase or own a firearm to be screened, yielding a near-complete list of gun owners.
Considering the sordid track record of this Federal Government in labeling human beings in effort to control them(the WWII-era U.S. internment camps, the House un-American Activites Committee, COINTEL-Pro are a few of scores of subjects that come to mind), it wouldn't be illogical for one to distrust its judgement or the judgement of any politician that supports such a policy.
I do not assume whether you are cognizant of what happened after Germany forced the registration of what amounted to virtually all privately-owned firearms under Hitler, but I have a degree of awareness with regard to this topic.
Hence, I like using the word "Hitlery" to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hitler never had even HALF the votes cast.
Is that supposed to be a sort of qualifying statement in order to argue that Hitler was illegitimate as a leader because he didn't get 50% of the votes cast? In the event that it was, do I need to remind you that during the 1992, 1996, and 2000 (s)elections the presidential (s)elects all each didn't have half of the votes cast according to the official tally?
I realize the rules are different in both separate jurisdictions and time periods, but on this specific variable, an apt comparison can certainly be made between the two civilizations.
And on this subject, considering all of the voter purging, the disenfranchisement, the fraud, and the tampered machines, among other issues that have plagued the (s)electoral process for decades, never-mind the whole issue with the Electoral College actually (s)electing the president, I don't place a whole lot of value on the integrity of the (s)electoral process.
Again, you're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in your personal agenda. The Hitler like candidate is Bernie Sanders. None other than, as anyone actually familiar with the two can tell you.
What is this "truth" that I'm supposedly not interested in or this "agenda" you claim that I have? You claim to know more about me or my views than is plausible for never having had an in-depth discussion with me. You also seem hostile.
In truth, Hillary and Donald have their Hitler-like qualities too. Examples: One of Trump's former wives has stated that for a time he kept a copy of Hitler's speeches next to his bed and was inspired by them. Hillary wants to force a backdoor form of gun registration.
Dauntless said:
As long as your boy ain't winning, he's being cheated.
The Toecutter said:
If you would have even read my post, you would realize that Bernie is not "my boy", to start with. I wanted Rand Paul, who is almost at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
This entire system has been taken over by authoritarian neoliberals and neoconservatives, all of them crony capitalistszzzzzz of sortszzzzz. Hitlery is among the worst of them. They do not come close to represzzzzzzzzzz . . . zzzelling America out as the American people are demanding a halt to thizzzzzzzz. . . are traitorzzzz, and will stop at nothing until they've achieved worldwide corporate hegemony and full spectrum dominance over every azzzzpect of our liveszzzzzzzz. . . .
. . . .zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! (SNORK!) It must be an election year, my insomnia is cured. How does that old song go?
Listen kid you paid for the call.
You ain't bad but we heard it all
BEFOOOOOREEE. . . .
That's right, you didn't even write that speech yourself, you stole it from the hundreds, thousands, etc. you heard make it before. How will you ever learn that to the rest of us, you're just peeling rotten onions for the fun of it?
What a fine example of an ad-hominem and a non-sequitur on your part. How cute. :lol:
you and your friends survived that, right?
Now that's dedication.
