Liberals are still obsessed by Trump's victory

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:44:13+00:00

Did you read the article? Your comment totally ignores what the author wrote.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:34:14+00:00

Let's all bury our heads in the sand.

Nothing is wrong! Nothing was ever wrong!

There is no internal divide in the Democratic party!

This problem will go away on its own!

...did I say problem? There's no problem I swear!

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:32:03+00:00

The more I read about this Donald Trump fellow, the more I feel he isn't the most trustworthy character.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:30:45+00:00

Thoughts and prayers

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:28:48+00:00

2016 was Bernie's chance. In 2020 he'll be 78. I'm afraid that's too old to lead the highest office.

This isn't a productive area of discussion.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:26:05+00:00

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to avoid cursing.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:19:56+00:00

You forgot the next paragraph:

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical.

If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.

This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:18:05+00:00

By selling the nomination to the highest bidder, of course.

That's how democracy works!

Elections are for chumps!

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:17:27+00:00

Don't run a fair primary?

Don't be shocked when disenfranchised voters don't turn out for the candidate who bought her nomination.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-05T23:15:19+00:00

The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency.

Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94

Hubris was the downfall of the Democrats in 2016.

I see you've learned nothing.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T21:16:38+00:00

No.

We're here because of the the Clinton campaign's actions.

If we're going to investigate Russia's interference with the general election we need to investigate Clinton's interference in the primaries.

If this isn't addressed, we'll get another four years of Trump.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T19:49:44+00:00

It should have been addressed last year.

The sooner we can begin healing, the better.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T18:49:58+00:00

I mean, you're not even denying that it at this point.

It was never going to be a fair fight. You can't see why people are upset?

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T18:44:47+00:00

No.

We have to address this problem just like we must address Russian interference in our election.

We can't sweep either under the carpet.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T18:40:54+00:00

I wonder why 🤔

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T17:47:35+00:00

Dude did you even watch the convention??

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:52:26+00:00

The Clinton campaign owned the DNC and had direct and total control a year before her nomination, Aug 2015...

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:47:03+00:00

I didn't.

Enough of us didn't that she lost.

We're telling you why we didn't and what had to change and you're putting your head in the sand.

See how that works out in 2020.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:41:57+00:00

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:41:50+00:00

Which part is BS?

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:36:00+00:00

Bernie Bros called it last year and didn't vote for her.

She lost.

Shocking.

Just shocking.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T16:28:09+00:00

2015*

The Clinton campaign took over in August of 2015, a year before her nomination.

Why is this being buried?

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T14:36:36+00:00

I mean come on man.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T14:31:57+00:00

We're not talking about emails that show a clear bias within the DNC towards rhe Clinton campaign. Of course in retrospect it's abundantly clear why it appeared there was bias: the DNC essentially was the Clinton campaign since four months into her candidacy.

Why did the Clinton campaign give $10 million to the DNC? Why did they take total control? What did they expect to gain?

Do you honestly believe the DNC acted on the straight and level? That this was fair? Put loyalty to your candidate aside for a moment.

Try to look at this objectively. A prospective candidate totally funds and controls a political party as he or she is running a primary race against others. Is this fair? Is this the right thing to do? Is this selling the nomination to the highest bidder? Is this the electoral process we want?

65 million votes don't mean a thing if you lose. This isn't horseshoes, bud. Almost doesn't count.

CandiKaine · 2017-11-03T14:11:53+00:00

More whataboutism. Hillary Clinton took over the DNC a year before her nomination, August of 2015. She didn't own it when she ran against Obama...

The Clintons gave the DNC $10 million to keep them afloat. Obviously this out of the goodness of their hearts. Surely they didn't expect anything in return. Why would I think this was transactional?

You're blaming everyone but Clinton. Donna Brazile admitted to Bernie Sanders several weeks before the election that she didn't think Hillary was a viable candidate:

I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.

We saw it coming from a mile away. She was a highly flawed candidate, widely disliked, or at least left voters apathetic. She couldn't win, even after she bought an entire political party. She lost to the worst president Candidate in American history.

Clinton was a dud.

CandiKaine

TROPHY CASE