Opinion Which Presidential Election loss was more consequential? Al Gore losing the 2000 Election or Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 Election?

[Blayt7hh]

we were talking a little too much about NK and a potential war there.... shades of Iraq, and you can say it's a joke, there have been presidents going there to negotiate, never a sitting president, that's unprecedented.

That is factually untrue. We have never made moves to invade NK. Invading NK means going to war with China. Both countries have nukes. Even if you were to pretend China would t get involved and NK did not have nukes, the cost in lives and equipment would be too high for the US. The juice is nowhere near worth the squeeze.

I don’t know if rhetoric from the Trump camp has been convincing you that we were on the path to war, but if it has then it is completely fabricated. His claim is that he was able to cool tensions there, which you can debate the merit of. NK often rattles their sabres at the west and since 1953 it’s been nothing but hollow so make your conclusions as will I guess. But the US has no designs on Korea past defending SK.

The wall didn’t get built. I don’t know why you think it did. Sections got built, but like everything with trump the whole venture was rife with corruption.

You don’t have to argue with me on the tariffs on China. I agree that that was a good thing. I was just pointing out a blatant hypocrisy I often see on this site.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

We’re talking about any point in time.

what was so bad compared to the alternative?

 

[panamaican]

No, the fact that it was rigged means that it was rigged.

“The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign, in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership's publicly stated neutrality,[8] as several DNC operatives openly derided Sanders's campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[9] The revelations prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[10]The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters…”


Yes, the judge ruled that the DNC can do whatever they want, even rig the primaries.

DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules​

DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules

ivn.us

The process was far from “open to anyone” that’s why the DNC caught flack, because they were caught concealing their actions favoring Clinton.

“Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.“

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

“Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.“

Emails Released by WikiLeaks Appear to Show DNC Trying to Aid Hillary Clinton

The emails appeared to show support for her over Bernie Sanders.

abcnews.go.com

“The emails show the officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.“

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

Yes, our “democracy” in the US constitutes voting for the candidate that private organizations handpick while lying to their constituents that they actually have a say… that’s a problem.

Again -- the DNC's primaries do not select the candidates. This is known. It's always back end deals and arrangements. This is known. That you don't know the back end deals every time or that someone doesn't sue over them every time does not mean that they aren't happening every time.

The DNC raises money which they then use to fund candidates. You think people are donating millions of dollars to the DNC without putting their fingerprint on who the party prioritizes?

Sanders alleged bias. Well, yeah, the DNC is biased. They promote the candidate that they think has the best chance of winning. The primaries are like checking their math. It's not rigged because this is how it is always done. And re: Sanders, as a long time Democrat, he knew this. He, or his people, just got salty that he wasn't the guy and HRC was going to be. But you can be sure that for years, Sanders sat by while these deals were hashed out for others.

It's not rigged just because the one time someone wants the system to be biased for them, it's biased for someone else, especially if they've always known that this is how it's done.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

I feel like Hillary would have been one of the worst president's of all time. She was completely corrupt, and is a servant of big pharma and her donors. She would have sold out the country and shut everything down during covid for as long as possible. The economy would have collapsed, and her foreign relation policies were awful. She would have started a war with Russia too. Thank God you dummies had enough sense to vote Trump

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Trumpism dies in 2016 if Hilary wins. He probably cries about it being stolen but it's very unlikely that many people take him seriously. The right wing media doesn't hop on the "they stole the election" train because Trumpism hadn't completely taken over the party yet. They view him as a loser and move on.

Ultimately, I think Trumpism does more damage to the country long term than the wars and it's not even really close.

What a crock of shit lmao

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again -- the DNC's primaries do not select the candidates. This is known. It's always back end deals and arrangements. This is known. That you don't know the back end deals every time or that someone doesn't sue over them every time does not mean that they aren't happening every time.

The DNC raises money which they then use to fund candidates. You think people are donating millions of dollars to the DNC without putting their fingerprint on who the party prioritizes?

Sanders alleged bias. Well, yeah, the DNC is biased. They promote the candidate that they think has the best chance of winning. The primaries are like checking their math. It's not rigged because this is how it is always done. And re: Sanders, as a long time Democrat, he knew this. He, or his people, just got salty that he wasn't the guy and HRC was going to be. But you can be sure that for years, Sanders sat by while these deals were hashed out for others.

It's not rigged just because the one time someone wants the system to be biased for them, it's biased for someone else, especially if they've always known that this is how it's done.

It's also irrelevant. For one thing, the delegates are decided by the state committees. For another, the election wasn't even close among actual voters. Clinton won the popular vote by like 12 points. Sanders's pitch was to try to get party insiders to put voters' preferences aside. But the whole reason they had superdelegates to begin with was to prevent voters from picking an extremist candidate who would lose in the general (after the disastrous nomination of McGovern).

 

[PhitePhan]

Again -- the DNC's primaries do not select the candidates. This is known. It's always back end deals and arrangements. This is known. That you don't know the back end deals every time or that someone doesn't sue over them every time does not mean that they aren't happening every time.

The DNC raises money which they then use to fund candidates. You think people are donating millions of dollars to the DNC without putting their fingerprint on who the party prioritizes?

Sanders alleged bias. Well, yeah, the DNC is biased. They promote the candidate that they think has the best chance of winning. The primaries are like checking their math. It's not rigged because this is how it is always done. And re: Sanders, as a long time Democrat, he knew this. He, or his people, just got salty that he wasn't the guy and HRC was going to be. But you can be sure that for years, Sanders sat by while these deals were hashed out for others.

It's not rigged just because the one time someone wants the system to be biased for them, it's biased for someone else, especially if they've always known that this is how it's done.

The fact that the DNC e-mail leak outed these legal but unethical practices goes to show that the DNC did their best to hide their bias from their constituents, and that these back room deals have been deliberately obfuscated in order to keep people ignorant.

I’d say that giving one candidate debate questions ahead of time is certainly unethical and within the realm of “rigging” no?

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign - Washington Examiner

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

DNC officials stepped down, apologized, admitted wrongdoing… all of this for something you claim is run of the mill politicking… weird.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Gore since losing got us embroiled in two wars.

 

[panamaican]

The fact that the DNC e-mail leak outed these legal but unethical practices goes to show that the DNC did their best to hide their bias from their constituents, and that these back room deals have been deliberately obfuscated in order to keep people ignorant.

I’d say that giving one candidate debate questions ahead of time is certainly unethical and within the realm of “rigging” no?

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign - Washington Examiner

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

DNC officials stepped down, apologized, admitted wrongdoing… all of this for something you claim is run of the mill politicking… weird.

Stop. The DNC didn't try to hide anything from their constituents. The constituents have never read internal emails and every organization under the sun opposes leaking internal communications externally.

I can't keep arguing this with you. You don't understand the process, you apparently never understood the process and the one time the process didn't work for "your guy", you've decided that the process was "rigged".

Believe what you wish if it makes you feel better.

 

[PhitePhan]

Stop. The DNC didn't try to hide anything from their constituents. The constituents have never read internal emails and every organization under the sun opposes leaking internal communications externally.

I can't keep arguing this with you. You don't understand the process, you apparently never understood the process and the one time the process didn't work for "your guy", you've decided that the process was "rigged".

Believe what you wish if it makes you feel better.

DNC officials stepped down, apologized, admitted wrongdoing… all of this for something you claim is run of the mill politicking.

Your attempts to paint my position as ignorant or unfounded is laughable. Even the DNC you are defending admitted wrongdoing… for some reason YOU can’t acknowledge this, but that is your problem alone.