I'm not going to give them money.
I don't think the nomination process is fair.
I think the people running the party are not representative of the constituency.
How is the process
not fair exactly? I mean, you brought up superdelegates. You're aware that they affected literally nothing, correct? That even without them, Hillary would have
still won the primary? That they never, at any point, mattered?
Unless you're going to claim that people just voted the way the superdelegates did and applied no thought of their own to the process. In which case I'd like to see evidence of this claim. Because I never do. I've never seen evidence that
any significant number of people voted for Hillary just because of superdelegates instead of it just being their own choice and what they wanted to do.
On top of that, if you seriously think that a significant number of people, enough to tilt the entire result of the primary, voted for Clinton simply because of Clinton, do you realize how extremely condescending you sound? How utterly, purely, 100% condescending? That you are so unable to comprehend why a significant number of people voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, that you're more willing to believe based on zero evidence that people, instead of making that choice of their own free will and because they actually liked her and supported her and believed in her, that instead in somehow makes
more sense to you that a significant group of her voters only voted for her because of superdelegates and the DNC? That it's more likely that people voted for her because of superdelegates than because they actually, genuinely 100% supported her and believed her to be the better candidate? Do you have any idea, even the
slightest idea, how condescending and insulting that is, to think that lowly of the people who voted for Clinton just because you don't agree with them? That you think it's more likely that they're just some hivemind because you don't understand? Because that's the only way that position works.
The only way.
My first post clearly states I voted for Hillary.
Interesting. Then you understand why someone might make that decision, considering
you did so yourself. That maybe, just maybe, she didn't win the primary because elites behind the scenes were pulling the strings, but rather because millions of actual people evaluated the options and decided that she was the better choice. You know, exactly the way you did it! If
you can do it, then why can't
they?
So in that case, what's with this superdelegate bullshit--why bring them up at all? How did they influence anything? Where's the evidence for this? Not feelings, not hunch or instinct, but evidence? That it in any way impacted people's decisions and there choice was any less their own than your own vote? Or does freedom of thought only apply to you and everyone else is affected by the evil superdelegates and DNC? Seriously, take a moment and realize how ridiculous this train of thought is. It doesn't hold up at all.
That and why the fuck are we talking about this in a thread about Trump proving that he's a racist ass? Why do you want to talk about the DNC and Clinton more than Trump when they don't even have anything to do with anything, and you want them to be the topic anyway? C'mon man. Not the time or place at all. Not remotely.