376

Grisham on Trump’s meeting with Orbán: ‘He wants to be a dictator’ (thehill.com)

submitted 8 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -5 points 8 months ago

from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.

The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.

if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846

If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party

The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."

The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the 2016 election.

Yeah, clearly your "understanding" of their conclusion is based in reality. Why so dishonest? I don't get it.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -5 points 8 months ago

your accusation of dishonesty is bad faith. i'm engaging entirely with the facts here.

this paper doesn't even acknowledge the role the party finances and other resources played in the nomination process, tilting the results at the polls before many voters even had a chance to voice their preference.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Oh look at all that good hard evidence you are providing. Very convincing. It's not just "forget your hard evidence. Look at my vague accusations that make me suspicious!"

Do you realize that I've had "debates" with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern? It's funny how much my fellow Sanders supporters can sound like Trump supporters.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -5 points 8 months ago

i'm not a sanders supporter. i'm an anarchist.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

I apologize. I thought you had said something earlier about supporting Sanders, and when I've had this debate before it's almost always been with another Sanders supporter.

But good on you on not having a horse in the race and still demonstrating confirmation bias.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -5 points 8 months ago

>Do you realize that I’ve had “debates” with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern?

i'm not interested in a debate at all.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

i’m not interested in a debate at all.

Pretty standard response after a failed argument.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -5 points 8 months ago

politics

19144 readers

2197 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News