By your definition of “manipulate”, anyone who favors or endorses a candidate is “manipulating” the election. Hell anyone who votes for one candidate over another is manipulating an election by your definition.
I had no idea that I had a conspiracy theory going on about Hillary not winning the primaries if it wouldn’t have been for the machinations of the DNC.
Now that you mention it, I haven’t looked into that myself but even without gathering some spreadsheet of data what should be obvious is that it’s not about counts of votes but about the number of delegates your receive which you can have more than your opponent even with less actual votes in your favour.
But besides that first one of your deflections, the second one, namely about what the word ‘manipulation’ means, I’m not aware of some right wing media consensus which claims that the DNC has manipulated in the way of stuffing ballot boxes. You are probably following the right wing media much more religiously than me, at least filtered through the left wing media. So I assume that when you use the word ‘manipulation’ in regards with the right wing media that you are talking about what is mentioned in the leaked emails and stuff and that kind of manipulation.
Show me a single instance of “manipulation” (by any reasonable definition) revealed in the leaked emails. i dare you. It is not there. At most, you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz suggesting that the Hillary camp play up Sanders’ atheism in an attempt to sway religious voters. Only that suggestion was never taken. You also have an offhand comment by Schultz that Sanders will “never be president”, which she made when a staffer pointed out to her that Sanders would replace her as chairperson of the committee if he were elected. That’s not manipulation, it’s empty reflexive smoke blowing. SO, if Schultz or ANYONE ELSE in the DNC is guilty of “manipulating” the election, SHOW ME evidence of that in the leaked emails . . .
Fact is, you haven’t read the emails and know nothing about them, but you’re willing to jump on all the media hype and conclude in your ignorance that the DNC manipulated the primary.
You got that all wrong, you Schultz.
If dumb lefties wouldn’t have gotten baited by Trump into getting all hysterical about some Russian Putin hacker conspiracy trying to “manipulate” the votes then it wouldn’t have been a big story.
Bottomline, what the DNC did was much more manipulative than the exposing of what the DNC did was manipulative.
I don’t have to read all the emails to say what I am saying. All I have to do is point out the hysterical reaction of the left about the hacking and how it’s an attempt to manipulate the presidential election. Neither do you have to read all the emails.
So what the hell are you even talking about?
It’s all really simple. Your first sentence -
is bullshit because the right wing media is not claiming that the DNC tried to manipulate the election as in fraud.
And if you are referring to my posted meme then tough luck, that’s just abusing stupid lefties who got baited by Trump and talking about that “manipulation” and showing how laughable their claims are. The End.
i mean, let’s be brutally realistic, here: Sanders almost certainly won more votes as a result of his campaign playing up his underdog status than Hillary won as a result of the DNC favoring her. So, if anything, the simple irony is that the DNC unwittingly manipulated the primary in SANDERS’ favor by supporting Hillary - and it STILL wasn’t enough to win him the election. In the real world, that’s how far the DNC was from rigging the election so Hillary would win.
Whatever you say, champ.
Meet Sergeant ‘I know nothing’ Schultz.
Schultz deserved to go down, and it was better (or not as bad) for the Democrats that she went down.
And now shes gonna win because Trump cant handle her calmed down persona.
She has the air suddenly of a tired and cranky schoolteacher or schoolhead. Very much an image of reliability rather than sociopath which I first couldnt help seeing in her. She changed fast and inpressively after securing the nomination.
Yes, Im talking of image, not policy - but still, this is America.
Politics is merely distraction from much larger existential and environmental problems pervading the world that most simpletons pay no attention to. For instance things like economics, no matter who wins the election nothing is going to change the disastrous global economic plateau.
Beyond nationalist nativism and internationalist social ideological conflict there is very little difference from their enacted general public policies. This is especially true in economic propositions.
I can see the merit in this logic.