Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
The DNC was in the tank for Hillary, but they were so obvious and incompetent at it that they probably ended up hurting her more than they helped.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #52  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:01 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,593
As an outsider, it's clear to me that the DNC would prefer four more years of Trump to a Sanders presidency. Unfortunately, I'm afraid they'll get exactly what they wish for.
  #53  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:02 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
As an outsider, it's clear to me that the DNC would prefer four more years of Trump to a Sanders presidency. Unfortunately, I'm afraid they'll get exactly what they wish for.
This post is bonkers.
  #54  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
And if not for those things would Sanders have magically broken through the ceiling of 15-20% support among African American voters in the South? Due to how the Democrats delegate allocation works, margin of victory is all important. While Sanders came close to Hillary in several large states like California, and eked out a win over her in Michigan, a small win is almost a draw in delegates. Meanwhile throughout the entire Southeast Hillary sometimes beat Bernie by margins as high as 60%.

That's basic math and is why Bernie lost. Is it your theory that anything the DNC did would have changed the way black voters in the Southeast viewed Bernie in 2016?
Why are you making excuses for cheating? If you watched a Superbowl game and it became obvious (and later proved) that the refs were paid off to favor one team would you argue it is fine because the opposing team didn't really have a chance anyway?

If Clinton's game was so overwhelming anyway that Sanders never had a chance then why cheat at all?

Thing is, none of us can say how things might have played out differently if the DNC had acted as a neutral party towards all candidates. I recall how early on it was being widely touted how far behind Sanders was from Clinton, giving the impression he was nearly mathematically out of it so a wasted vote, when it was mostly the superdelegates that were being counted. Such appearances matter and this was not done by accident.

Clinton was definitely the front runner from the get-go but she got beat by a dark horse candidate eight years earlier when she was also the front-runner. Sanders was looking to do something similar and she was not going to have any of that again.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #55  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:43 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
As an outsider, it's clear to me that the DNC would prefer four more years of Trump to a Sanders presidency. Unfortunately, I'm afraid they'll get exactly what they wish for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This post is bonkers.
Is it though?

- John Kerry overheard discussing possible 2020 bid amid concern of 'Sanders taking down the Democratic Party' (he said afterwards he had no intention whatsoever to do that but it seems he was discussing it for some reason which at the least shows where their feelings lie)

- DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention (after the 2016 fiasco the DNC changed the rules on superdelegates...now they want to put it back to the way it was)

- DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

- The 2020 Endorsement Primary (Biden has 252 pledged superdelegates, Warren 87, Bloomberg 62...they all got more after Iowa where they lost badly to Sanders, Sanders 55...remind you of 2016?)

- Are Tom Perez and the DNC preparing for a battle against Bernie Sanders and the left? Progressives say Perez's list of DNC nominees is loaded with enemies like Bakari Sellers and Barney Frank
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-06-2020 at 03:47 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:17 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
I forgot one other to add to post #55 above:

- After unloading on Sanders, Hillary Clinton walks back not committing to him as nominee

Clinton's initial bit (from the article above):

Quote:
He was in Congress for years," Clinton says in the soon-to-be-released four-part Hulu documentary "Hillary," The Hollywood Reporter said in a report on Tuesday. "He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him. Nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it."

Asked by the publication in an interview released on Tuesday whether her assessment still stands, Clinton said, "Yes, it does."

And she would not commit to endorsing Sanders, who backed her as the Democratic nominee following the 2016 primaries, if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
She has since said she will support whoever the nominee is but probably because she got a crapload of pushback on it. So, if Sanders in the nominee she may "support" him but I would not count on zealous support from her.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-06-2020 at 04:17 PM.
  #57  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:49 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 554
I don’t want Hillary supporting Sanders. The best thing she can do for him is go away.
  #58  
Old 02-06-2020, 05:28 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Please, Hillary, stop saying mean things about Bernie! You're really hurting his campaign by doing that! And whatever you do, please DON'T THROW HIM IN THAT THERE BRIAR PATCH!
  #59  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:49 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Is it though?
Yes.
  #60  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:59 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Yes.
You know all those "fake news" MAGA types?

This is just like that.

Also, Clinton went after Sanders again today as well as James Carville throwing in some digs (at dems as a whole but with special emphasis on Sanders):

- Team Clinton Hits Sanders Ahead of New Hampshire Primary
- “We’re losing our damn minds”: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-07-2020 at 10:00 PM.
  #61  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:08 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Why are you making excuses for cheating? If you watched a Superbowl game and it became obvious (and later proved) that the refs were paid off to favor one team would you argue it is fine because the opposing team didn't really have a chance anyway?
I'm sorry, what exactly are you on about? The Democratic Party is a political party, its leaders are politicians, they are allowed to have bias, and political preference. They are allowed to use what powers they have in service of those preferences. Particularly for intraparty business. This actually, believe it or not, is normal. So I need you to identify very specifically what you believe is cheating in the realm of intraparty politics.

The party owes no one neutrality. The party does have some fairness obligations in certain contexts. For example if they tried to manipulate the vote in a primary (which are actually legal, state run elections) that would be a serious crime. Do you have evidence that occurred?

In 2000 Al Gore ran for his party's nomination for President. He received the formal endorsement in his race against Bill Bradley of the sitting U.S. President (who is nominally the head of the party while in office, even though he does nothing formally in that role), and every Democrat congressional leader in Congress. The party massively and immensely backed Gore quite early in the primary process and snuffed Bradley's primary chances out (he wasn't going to win anyway.)

In fact, in 2016 Obama's endorsement of the party favored candidate came much later than is typical for sitting President endorsements: cite, in fact Obama held off on endorsing Hillary until after she had essentially already won the primary.

He specifically did it out of fear progressive snowflakes would claim the process was "rigged", even though by definition--politics is not a fair fight, it is not intended to be, and conflicts within a party are not about fairness.

For example in the U.S. House, anytime an "insurgent" challenges their party's leader for House office and loses, the insurgent usually finds themselves stripped of committee assignments and blocked out of power. This isn't cheating, it's called politics.

The government has a strong obligation to be neutral in how it runs elections (one at which it regularly fails), but the political parties have no such obligation, morally, ethically, conventionally, or legally. It's a fiction Sanders supporters invented in 2016. And that is widely out of step with how American politics is generally conducted.

Quote:
If Clinton's game was so overwhelming anyway that Sanders never had a chance then why cheat at all?
I'll have to wait more to hear what vague, and ephemeral definition of "cheating" you decide to invent before I can fully address this--but it is my contention they didn't cheat at all because they didn't owe Sanders neutrality. Sanders doesn't get to take away other politicians right to endorse and choose the candidate they like just because..he wants to?

Quote:
Thing is, none of us can say how things might have played out differently if the DNC had acted as a neutral party towards all candidates. I recall how early on it was being widely touted how far behind Sanders was from Clinton, giving the impression he was nearly mathematically out of it so a wasted vote, when it was mostly the superdelegates that were being counted. Such appearances matter and this was not done by accident.
That's not true though, he was also mathematically out of it in terms of pledged delegates very early on. Because none of the Democratic primaries are winner take all, once any kind of real lead is built it's very difficult to turn them around. Because you can't turn it around by just edging out 51/49 wins, you have to engineer big drubbings. FiveThirtyEight and all kinds of other sites that built pledged delegate predictors had modeled Sanders as having no significant chance of victory as early as late March.

Quote:
Clinton was definitely the front runner from the get-go but she got beat by a dark horse candidate eight years earlier when she was also the front-runner. Sanders was looking to do something similar and she was not going to have any of that again.
Obama wasn't really a dark horse candidate, in fact a dark horse candidate as a term really has little meaning in modern politics. A dark horse was someone in the old convention system who would emerge as the nominee after dozens of rounds of voting, when all the leading men had basically been rejected for some reason or another and the party bosses found a compromise candidate from the somewhat lower political echelons. (Abraham Lincoln was a dark horse candidate of the GOP in 1860, having not been seriously thought of as the likely nominee going into the convention.) Obama ran a well built and supported campaign from very early on, albeit a smaller one at first than Hillary until he built up his small donor funding base and started getting more big donors.

There's really not any way to get the nomination in the "primary" system as a traditional "dark horse", because to get the nomination in the primary system you have to put your name out there and openly advocate for yourself very early on. The closest modern candidate to being a dark horse is potentially Bill Clinton, since at the start of the 1992 campaign season he wasn't considered much of a favorite to win the nomination, being a relatively little known (nationally) Arkansas Governor.

Barack Obama was actually running to be President, and while he started off lean he had smart political strategists who were building his organization to expand into one that would be needed to compete with Hillary for the nomination. A ton of people connected to Sanders, albeit not Bernie himself, have admitted that the 2016 run was simply started as a protest run to try to get some more leftist positions into the party platform. After Bernie did well in a few of the early states he realized he might have a chance to win and then he actually wanted to be President. But at that point he was basically trying to build a genuinely competitive campaign with like a 3.5 year deficit versus Hillary, with far less organization, less professional political staffers positioned in offices around the country etc.

Bernie never had a real chance of winning the 2016 nomination because he didn't decide to enter until relatively late, he was doing so as a protest candidate, and quixotically tried to become a real candidate far too late in the process to ever hope to catch up.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:10 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I'm sorry, what exactly are you on about? The Democratic Party is a political party, its leaders are politicians, they are allowed to have bias, and political preference. They are allowed to use what powers they have in service of those preferences. Particularly for intraparty business. This actually, believe it or not, is normal. So I need you to identify very specifically what you believe is cheating in the realm of intraparty politics.

The party owes no one neutrality. The party does have some fairness obligations in certain contexts. For example if they tried to manipulate the vote in a primary (which are actually legal, state run elections) that would be a serious crime. Do you have evidence that occurred?
You're right.

The party can skip the whole election thing and just tell us who the candidate will be.

What I am "on about" is trying to have what looks like democracy and a fair election when it is nothing of the sort.

If they want to anoint a candidate then say so and be done with it. The hocus pocus of an election they really want no part of is bullshit.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #63  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:38 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
The party owes no one neutrality.
Unless they specifically write it into their own bylaws. Which they did. But I'm not looking up the cite for the five billionth time.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-08-2020 at 05:40 PM.
  #64  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:17 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
The bylaws are entirely discretionary—some crying Sanders supporters actually tried to sue the DNC over the 2016 election, claiming they felt their contributions to the Sanders campaign were defrauded since they thought the nominating process would be completely neutral by the DNC. A judge threw the lawsuit out.

Even under the bylaws at the time, the DNC’s only significant letter of the law violations were minor ones that had no impact on the election, such as Donna Brazile leaking a few debate questions in one of a long series of interminable Democratic debates, of which there were too many and none of which really appeared to matter very much.

Stuff like the leaked DNC staff emails of DNC employees talking shit about Sanders did not violate DNC rules in place in 2016. In fact the new rules in 2020 that prohibit DNC staff from speaking negatively about any candidate in private, having political bumper stickers on their cars, prohibiting signs in their yards etc represents a draconian intrusion of an employer into the lives of employees. But of course it serves to try to keep the Cultists of Bernie happy, and considering his love for leftist totalitarian regimes he’s probably happy to see the party stripping away ordinary rights of opinion from salaried staff.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
The bylaws are entirely discretionary—some crying Sanders supporters actually tried to sue the DNC over the 2016 election, claiming they felt their contributions to the Sanders campaign were defrauded since they thought the nominating process would be completely neutral by the DNC. A judge threw the lawsuit out.

Even under the bylaws at the time, the DNC’s only significant letter of the law violations were minor ones that had no impact on the election, such as Donna Brazile leaking a few debate questions in one of a long series of interminable Democratic debates, of which there were too many and none of which really appeared to matter very much.

Stuff like the leaked DNC staff emails of DNC employees talking shit about Sanders did not violate DNC rules in place in 2016. In fact the new rules in 2020 that prohibit DNC staff from speaking negatively about any candidate in private, having political bumper stickers on their cars, prohibiting signs in their yards etc represents a draconian intrusion of an employer into the lives of employees. But of course it serves to try to keep the Cultists of Bernie happy, and considering his love for leftist totalitarian regimes he’s probably happy to see the party stripping away ordinary rights of opinion from salaried staff.
Why are you ok with any of that?

Because technically, legally, if you want to be super anal about it all they did nothing wrong you are ok with with it?

Clearly, with no doubt whatsoever, the DNC leaned heavily on the scales of the 2016 election for Clinton. Maybe you can say that is their right. But don't expect me to be enthused for their anointed candidate when they blatantly ignored my vote in the primary.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #66  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:40 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Clearly, with no doubt whatsoever, the DNC leaned heavily on the scales of the 2016 election for Clinton.
Nothing even close to that happened.
  #67  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:11 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Nothing even close to that happened.
Yeah, it did. The DNC admitted to it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #68  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:18 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Yeah, it did. The DNC admitted to it.
Ridiculous.
  #69  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:20 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Ridiculous.
Not kidding. They really did.

Wanna bet on it?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #70  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:23 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Not kidding. They really did.

Wanna bet on it?
I'm quite sure that your cite does not support your claim, but you will be incapable of seeing that. Thus betting would be a waste of time as you'd never concede that you lost.
  #71  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'm quite sure that your cite does not support your claim, but you will be incapable of seeing that. Thus betting would be a waste of time as you'd never concede that you lost.
We can leave it to the Mods of this channel to choose. (I do not know them...at all)

$100 to a charity of the winner's choice. (Legit charity...Whack-a-Mole charity is not a thing)
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-08-2020 at 07:33 PM.
  #72  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:39 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
If you don't want to cite your claim, no one can make you.
  #73  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:42 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
If you don't want to cite your claim, no one can make you.
Make the bet and I will cite it.

I have posted that cite so many times here I am getting tired of it. Make it worth my time.

Please. It's for charity!

Loser has to post the payment to the charity in this thread. (screen cap will do)
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-08-2020 at 07:45 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:45 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Haha. No.

You made the (ridiculous) claim. You provide the (irrelevant) cite.
  #75  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:58 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Haha. No.

You made the (ridiculous) claim. You provide the (irrelevant) cite.
You claiming it is ridiculous does not make it ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is you claiming something is ridiculous but not being willing to stand behind your claim of ridiculousness (that whole thing was hard to type).

Put your money where your mouth is. If I am bluffing/full of shit you're in the clear.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-08-2020 at 07:58 PM.
  #76  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:05 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If I am bluffing/full of shit you're in the clear.
I don't think you're bluffing or full of shit. You're just wrong. Super duper wrong and incapable of seeing that.

I'm pretty sure I know what cite you're going to post. You posted it so often you're tired of doing so. It doesn't say what you are claiming. Not even close, but the fact that you think it does tells me that betting would be pointless.
  #77  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't think you're bluffing or full of shit. You're just wrong. Super duper wrong and incapable of seeing that.

I'm pretty sure I know what cite you're going to post. You posted it so often you're tired of doing so. It doesn't say what you are claiming. Not even close, but the fact that you think it does tells me that betting would be pointless.
Put your money where your mouth is.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #78  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:52 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Put your money where your mouth is.
I understand why you want to distract from defending your claim substantively.
  #79  
Old 02-09-2020, 10:01 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Put your money where your mouth is.

New Rules for Politics and Elections – January 2020

Quote:
No betting. Gambling between posters in GD and Politics and Elections over debate outcomes or real world events is forbidden. In the past we've had posters use this as a rhetorical device to abuse other posters and accuse them of lacking the courage of their convictions. It's a jerk move we have decided to no longer allow.
  #80  
Old 02-09-2020, 10:09 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 585
I tried to remove my last post but was too late to edit. Sorry for junior modding!
  #81  
Old 02-09-2020, 07:56 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


Indeed.

No betting. No nothing of a similar nature.
  #82  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Yeah, it did. The DNC admitted to it.
Here let me help you, use this as a cut and paste: " We wuz robbed!"

Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017