• kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    57
    ·
    10 days ago

    Did they take his name off the ballot?

    Did they change the vote totals?

    Did they forbid him from campaigning?

    They just ‘put their thumbs on the scales’? What does that even mean? They did ‘everything they could to lock him out of the process’ while letting him campaign and participate in the process? All your examples are vague as fuck, bro.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      “I’ma be disrespectful to you, but I expect you to teach me!”

      This ain’t a debate. lol. If you want people to share their knowledge with you, come correct. Most people would be happy to share information. When you act all dishonest it makes no one want to even talk to you unless they agree with you

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        10 days ago

        The man is out here talking shit and won’t show you evidence of why he’s right because it’s not his job to be a teacher and also you are disrespectful in your challenging of his assertions, am I following you correctly?

        The reason for no evidence is because there is no evidence, the reason for my disrespect is because i know he has no evidence. Don’t try to pretend like if i came at this from a different angle he’d suddenly be opening the library of Alexandria for us.

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          If I say, the earth isn’t a perfect sphere and that actually it’s a bit oval/elliptical (or whatever or supposedly is) and then someone answers all pissy and asking me to prove it, do you really think I’m likely to help them understand my position if I find them rude and annoying? Most people that genuinely want to understand others’ point of view don’t say things like “or was that someone else’s fault?” They say things like"can you explain why you think that?" or maybe “I’ve been thinking xyz, why is it you think abc instead?”

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        10 days ago

        Superdeligates have never once decided a primary.

        Here’s a simpler explanation: Progressive voters don’t turn out, even when it’s Bernie. They failed him in 16, they failed him in 20, and now they’ve failed us all.

        It’s easy to mail in vote, it is easy to donate money. It’s hard to actually physically show up and vote, so they stay at home.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 days ago

          Superdelegates are the primary tool that the DNC used to exert influence over primaries. They’ve only ever once voted against the voter consensus, but they pledge full support early, which is then used by the media to grossly misrepresent candidate popularity. Mob mentality causes voters to pile behind the leading candidates, and thus the outcome of the primaries can be manipulated through use of super delegates. They abused this mechanism so heavily against Bernie that sweeping changes were made to the way that super delegates operate to avoid torch and pitchforks from an enraged constituency.

          There, I explained it to you in a very summarized form, even though I didn’t want to.

    • Ptsf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 days ago

      Did they change the vote totals?:

      Yes. Every running candidate next to Bernie pulled out, dedicating their votes to Clinton instead. It was blatant and out in the open. Hell, Bloomberg even “entered” the race late in caucusing and pulled out shortly after an insane ad spend dedicating his votes to Clinton as well. That’s “putting their 👍 on the scale”.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        So do you consider what the French left change did ‘changing vote totals’ when they dropped out of races where they were splitting the vote and allowing far right candidates to win?

        Biden offering people he was running against influence and positions in his government if they drop out and endorse him isn’t cheating, it’s basic politics and if Bernie had half a brain he’d have done the same thing to keep those people in the race.

        • Ptsf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yes.

          Also, anything that isn’t ranked choice voting that allows people to specify an order of preference at time of vote is not good politics and is not going to, and shouldn’t, sit well with progressives. Tit-for-tat is additionally an issue that many voters and progressives consider objectionable (source: exit polls). You can call it basic politics if you want, but if you’re progressive you’ll need to accept that it’s going to continuously cause us to lose elections and bleed voter support. People are clearly tired of establishment politics. Trump has proven that twice. Running as an anti-establishment candidate both times and winning, both times.

    • bobalot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      Lemmy like Reddit is a circlejerk.

      Bernie lost because less people voted for him.

      If it wasn’t for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier.