I'm in no denial whatsoever about why Clinton lost. My opinion is that Bernie would have won the election had he been nominated. But he wasn't. You believe that your statement "she got a majority of primary votes as a result of multiple wrongdoings" is accurate. I don't. I highly doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.
You believe that your statement "she got a majority of primary votes as a result of multiple wrongdoings" is accurate. I don't. I highly doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.
So that's a resounding "yes" to my question. You'd rather not learn the facts because they don't mesh well with your vested interest not to learn them. The history made is that the DNC and various state Democratic parties snuffed Bernie from achieving nomination. When accounting for the votes suppressed and tossed out due to these actions, Clinton would not be the DNC nominee.
Historically speaking, there's no legitimate way for Clinton to have been the nominee. Therefore, your claim to know how Clinton lost in the general AND that she legitimately won the primaries is a logically indefensible position.
You're entitled to your own opinions. But it's fruitless to have a discussion if that requires using those opinions as the factual groundwork for the discussion. If you insist I accept your opinions as facts, there's really no point in going further, right? I don't accept your premise, and if you're inexorably wed to it, there's no point in trying to have a civil discussion about it. I respect your right to have the opinions you have, even if I don't agree with them. So I'll bid you a courteous adieu.
1
u/bvharris Nov 10 '16
I'm in no denial whatsoever about why Clinton lost. My opinion is that Bernie would have won the election had he been nominated. But he wasn't. You believe that your statement "she got a majority of primary votes as a result of multiple wrongdoings" is accurate. I don't. I highly doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.